Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] MY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 29 June.

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Pension Increase

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): If he will estimate the cost to public funds of the 75p increase in the basic state pension in the current financial year. [125824]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Three hundred and seventy million pounds.

Mr. Robathan: I suspect that, like me, the Minister is just old enough to remember the 1959 general election, when Hugh Gaitskell promised to give every pensioner an immediate rise of 10 shillings on the old age state pension. After some 41 years of Labour rhetoric and a certain amount of inflation, is the Minister ashamed that this Government can manage only a 15 shilling rise? As an heir of Gaitskell and the Labour movement, is the Minister surprised that pensioners are increasingly disillusioned with this Government?

Mr. Smith: I do not recall the 1959 election—the relevant one for our purposes is the 1997 election. The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that we shall spend, in real terms, £6.5 billion extra on pensioners during this Parliament, compared with what they would have got from the Conservatives.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern expressed to me by pensioners in my constituency that if the Conservatives win power, pensioners will have their £150 winter fuel allowance taken away, as well as the free television licences for the over-75s and even the little sum at

Christmas that helps them to buy presents for their grandchildren? That is the Conservatives' policy, with Portillo the pickpocket of pensioners' purses.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Pensioners have been appalled to discover that under the Conservatives they would lose the winter fuel payment, the free television licences and the Christmas bonuses. Not only that, 140,000 more pensioners would pay tax and that would hit those on the minimum income guarantee. The Conservatives' policy would not help pensioners; instead, it would hit the poorest pensioners hardest.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): Why should the pensions increase be based on last year's inflation when the motorists tax increase is being based on future inflation? While the Chief Secretary is thinking of an answer to that, could he tell us how many Labour Members have made representations about the 75p increase?

Mr. Smith: The uprating of the state pension based on the inflation figure for the previous September is a long-standing practice that was introduced by the Conservatives in 1988.

Oral Answers to Questions — Charitable Giving

Mr. Ian Pearson: What discussions his Department plans with voluntary sector bodies on the changes to the taxation of charitable giving set out in the Budget. [125825]

Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): What impact he estimates his plans to encourage greater use of payroll giving will have on the charity sector. [125827]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The getting Britain giving package of measures, which I announced in the Budget, gives the most generous tax relief on donations by individuals and companies, including donations of shares to charities, and has involved extensive co-operation and consultation with the voluntary sector.
We will now also bring forward a proposal that the voluntary sector, business leaders, employees representatives and people from the marketing and advertising industry examine proposals for a national campaign to promote the giving not only of money, but of time. Our objective for the payroll giving campaign, which will be launched in September, is to more than double donations to charities through payroll giving. Our changes have been broadly welcomed by the charities.

Mr. Pearson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on the steps that he is taking to encourage venture philanthropy and other forms of charitable giving. Andrew Carnegie's dictum that wealth brings responsibility was forgotten under the Tories, but philanthropy—giving something back—is an important part of what being a Labour Government is all about. Is not the big issue now the importance of letting people know about the opportunities that exist to give to worthy


causes, and can we speed up and financially support the proposals for a national television, press and radio marketing campaign to promote a new age of giving?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he rightly points out, the ceiling on payroll donations to charity under the previous Government was £1,200 and that has been lifted altogether. Individual donations below £400 did not attract tax relief, but now all individual donations do so. We will work with the industry and with charities to publicise the giving of time as well as money.
In addition, we are about to introduce a children's fund that will give grants to innovative projects that are being run by community and charitable organisations. We are making changes in our sure start programme so that charity and community organisations can become involved, and we are creating an alliance for children that will bring together all the charitable organisations involved in helping children. We have had extensive consultations with children's charities on those matters.
As I said, our proposals have been broadly welcomed by the charities involved. Mr. Brophy, of the Charities Aid Foundation, said about the Budget in March that it introduced
some of the most radical changes to charitable giving ever.
He added that at a stroke, Labour had
created a new age of giving.

Mr. Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much enthusiasm among voluntary organisations in my constituency about his various initiatives on world debt? Many of them want to contribute to organisations such as Christian Aid, Oxfam and, in Scotland, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. Does he therefore appreciate that his proposals are welcome to the Churches and charitable organisations, as they indicate both community and global involvement?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I applaud his work in furthering the cause of debt relief in the third world. Christian Aid issued a statement to the effect that it believed that the measures introduced in the Budget may help it to gain an additional £1 million in its charitable efforts for fund raising this year. Many people, not least my mother, have written to the Treasury asking us to do more on third-world aid. I believe that the proposals in the Budget help not only third-world charities, but all charities.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the concern of the Industrial Careers Foundation, about which I have written to him twice since the Budget? It is worried that companies are assumed to make net donations, that they have to reclaim the tax themselves and that the charities are not able to do so on their behalf. This year, as a result of his changes and because of the structure of its donor profile, the ICF will lose no less than £5,000.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the letter that he sent to me at the Treasury. Despite what he says, our proposals have been widely welcomed across the board. We have made it

easier than ever for companies to give money to charities. We have introduced changes that the previous Conservative Government did not even contemplate.
I have a letter from the British Legion, arising from changes that we have made to the treatment of value added tax on poppies—another matter with which the previous Government did not deal. My correspondent says that he had the opportunity to make a statement about that VAT relief to his annual conference, and he tells me that it was "extremely well received".

Mr. Michael Portillo: As the Chancellor claims to be helping charities, may I help him with his arithmetic? His changes to advance corporation tax have cost charities £500 million a year. His further claim, which is not necessarily substantiated, is that £400 million has been given back to the charities. Will he tell the House plainly: does that leave the charities better off, or worse off?

Mr. Brown: We have given £1.2 billion in additional relief to charities as a result of the ACT changes that we introduced. In addition, despite what was said about those changes, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the amount of dividends that charities have received from company fund raising. As for verification of the figures on the generosity of the tax package in the Budget, £350 million is the figure that has been used by the Charities Aid Foundation and by individual charities.
However much he wants to, the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the previous Conservative Government talked a lot about helping charities, but never did what we have done. Our measures have been welcomed right across the board. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that our changes in the Budget were "very welcome". It is only one of a number of organisations that support our measures. Charities are better off as a result of what we are doing.

Mr. Portillo: That is simply not the case. The Chancellor put the tax package figure at £350 million, but he has taken away £500 million. However, if he will not take that from me, will he take it from the chief executive of Barnardos? He said that the Chancellor
is giving with one hand what he has already taken away with another.
Do not the charities know that the Government are taking away more than they have given? Is it not the case that no one believes a word that the Chancellor says?
If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to Barnardos, will he listen to Ian Campbell, who is the director of another charity? He said:
The Chancellor sets up backdoor burdens on us. Spin doctors may think that sweeteners can con electors but they distrust politicians who say one thing and do another.
Does not that explain why Labour Back Benchers are now openly briefing against the Chancellor? Do not people in the country now contrast what the Chancellor says with what he does? Do they not say to themselves, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister:
Isn't this spinning, and spinning is lying?

Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor wants to be consistent, let him repeat the words that he used about the Conservative party. He said that the Tories were linked to


harshness and thought to be uncaring about unemployment, poverty, poor housing, disability and single parenthood. He said they were thought to favour greed and the unqualified pursuit of the free market, with a devil-take-the-hindmost attitude. That is hardly an attitude that would commend itself to the charities that operate throughout the country.
Barnardos is involved with us in setting up the children's fund, and it welcomes what we are doing in this area. Let us remember that it was the previous Government who put VAT on fuel. We have extended VAT exemptions to more charity fund-raising events, broadened the VAT zero rate for sale and hire of donated goods, broadened the VAT zero rate for charity advertising, given greater VAT relief on the sale by charities of donated goods, extended VAT relief for the provision of rooms for disabled people in day centres and increased to £100,000 the limit below which charities and other businesses do not have to account for VAT on goods in hand. We have taken action to deal with abuses of VAT, with which the previous Government failed to deal.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that, for the first time, individual donations to charities can be made with tax exemption for all such donations from the Government. Equally, companies can make individual donations and receive tax relief. That is something that the Tory party never did and, from what the shadow Chancellor says about it, would never do.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not one of the reasons why the Tories are not keen on large benefactors giving money to charity is that Brian Souter finances the Tory party campaign from Scotland, Paul Sykes finances the Tory party campaign from Yorkshire and Michael Ashcroft finances the Tory party campaign from Belize and the House of Lords? Why does my right hon. Friend not tell those three people that it is a waste of money? What is the point of giving money to this tinpot Tory party? It is like chucking money down the drain.

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party is not a charity and never will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — Independent Schools

Mr. Christopher Chope: What the annual net cost or benefit to the Exchequer is of the charitable status of independent schools. [125826]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): There are no official statistics, but the Government are working in partnership with the sector, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Chope: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm that independent schools provide excellent value for money to the Exchequer and the taxpayer? They save the Exchequer having to fund some 600,000 school places out of taxation. For every pound received in charitable relief, the sum of £2 is spent on community benefit. Some £180 million is received in foreign earnings each year.
Why are the Government obsessed with making remarks detrimental to the success of independent schools

and universities? Why do they not concentrate instead of trying to improve standards in state schools? Why does the Minister think that the number of pupils educated in independent schools has risen during the lifetime of this Government, rather than declined?

Mr. Smith: The Government do recognise the distinctive strengths and contributions of the sector, which is why we are working in partnership with it. We believe that there are clear educational and social benefits from that collaboration. That is why we have set up our partnerships fund scheme, which this year will benefit 6,000 pupils from both state and independent schools on collaborative projects—part of a £400,000 fund that is available this year. So I dispute the hon. Gentleman's assertion, and repeat that we are committed to working in partnership, drawing on the strengths of both sectors.

Mr. David Taylor: In the lottery of British life, far too many of the big prizes go to the 7 per cent. of people who are educated privately. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social costs associated with this far outweigh the small sums referred to by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the former deputy leader of the party, and myself, in that we can never be a mature and progressive country while the levers of power of our nation are so often exercised by people who have been educated in public schools?

Mr. Smith: The important thing is that this Government and our party stand for opportunity for all, regardless of their background or, for that matter, the school that they go to. However, it cannot be acceptable when, for example, 67 per cent. of those achieving the top grades at A-level come from state schools, but achieve only 52 per cent. of the places at the top universities. That is what our campaign for opportunity for all is about: ensuring that everybody, regardless of background or education, has the opportunity to make the most of his or her potential.

Mr. Howard Flight: As the Minister will be aware, all educational institutions, as well as charities, suffer considerable tax costs as a result of irrecoverable VAT as well as the £500 million lost on ACT recovery. What plans have the Government for reforming the arbitrary and unjust VAT imposition on charities as well as for compensating for the ACT cost? Those are the two key issues about which charities, and in particular educational charities, are concerned.

Mr. Smith: I note that during the 18 years they had the chance to do something about that, the Conservatives did nothing at all. When we talk about the independent sector we are not just talking about conventional public schools; we are talking about the state schools, the choir schools and the ballet schools, as well as those educating children with special needs and those serving ethnic and religious groups. Those with charitable status are, of course, benefiting from all the measures that the present Government have taken to promote charitable giving, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just set out.

Oral Answers to Questions — Employment (North-East)

Ms Dail Taylor: What assessment he has made of the impact of his economic policies on levels of employment and unemployment in the north-east. [125828]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In the north-east, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, we have created a sound and credible platform of economic stability; we have also created the new deal and the working families tax credit, which will help us to attain our objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the election, employment in the north-east has risen by 20,000 and unemployment has fallen by 19,000. There are more than a million people in work in the north-east, the highest-ever figure.

Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has any consideration been given to extending the new deal as a training and employment programme? In my constituency, overall unemployment has dropped by 13 per cent.; youth unemployment by 54 per cent.; and long-term unemployment by 57 per cent. It has been without doubt a success. Will my right hon. Friend refute the statement by the shadow Chancellor that the new deal has been an expensive failure? It has been a cost-effective success in my constituency.

Mr. Brown: This is the difference between the two parties: we will extend the new deal to give young people, the long-term unemployed, single parents and others greater opportunities to get jobs. In that way, we are creating nearly a million jobs. The Conservative party would abolish the new deal and the working families tax credit. While it talks about full employment, it is removing the means by which we can achieve it.
It is very interesting that throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the shadow Chancellor never mentioned the words "full employment" as a commitment of the Conservative party. When he was at the Treasury and unemployment was rising, he said nothing about full employment. When he was Secretary of State for Employment, he said nothing about full employment. Even when the election was over and he was criticising the Conservative party for being harsh and uncaring, he said nothing about full employment. Now, as the next Conservative party leadership election comes nearer, he tells us that he supports full employment. If the Conservative party supports full employment, why is it trying to abolish the new deal, which is helping to create full employment?

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer ashamed that under his stewardship at the Treasury there have been closures, not least at Samsung in the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a plant within the Vale of York, as well as Siemens in the north-east? When will he take measures to tackle the high level of the pound, the low level of the euro and record unemployment in manufacturing and farming?

Mr. Brown: The record closures happened under Conservative Governments: 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the early 1980s and another 1 million in the early 1990s. The Government are creating jobs—nearly

1 million of them. If the hon. Lady wants to help us to create jobs, she should tell the shadow Chancellor to support the new deal instead of trying to abandon it.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): May I draw to the Chancellor's attention a proposal by Sage, an information technology company on Tyneside, to create a new cluster of enterprises centred in the employment area just north of Newcastle, which would bring the benefits of employment to the whole of Tyne and Wear? May I also draw to his attention the proposals of the regional assembly of councils and the regional development agency, which will be published today and tomorrow? They are offering significant proposals to bring about in the north-east of England the self-sustaining growth that we have not had for many years. Will he respond to those proposals with more support and more investment through the comprehensive spending review?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. I have visited Sage in Newcastle, and I can say that we shall announce more help in future for the regional development agencies, including One North-East, to allow them to adopt the kind of strategy that he mentioned. In the north-east, 40,000 more jobs have been created during the past year alone. I have examined the unemployment figures for each constituency: since the general election, there has been only one Conservative Member from the north-east, and youth unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 60 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 50 per cent. Jobs are up in the north-east, vacancies are up in the north-east, investment is up in the north-east—all of which the Conservatives would find out if ever they were up in the north-east.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Chancellor aware that businesses in the north-east have expressed serious alarm about his decision to impose a new energy tax—the so-called climate change levy—from next April? Businesses have told the Chancellor and the Treasury that that new tax will threaten future investment and jobs. Why does the Chancellor ignore the voice of industry, which produces investment and jobs? Does he agree that the new energy tax is completely unnecessary as the environmental changes to meet our international commitment could be far more easily achieved by other means?
Why is the Chancellor imposing a new stealth tax that all businesses, of whatever size, will have to pay, but which will bear particularly heavily on the manufacturing industries of the north-east, which face international competition? Is the Chancellor aware that the Government's talk of partnership with industry is mere empty rhetoric if he is simultaneously imposing new burdens and taxes on the wealth-producing sectors of the economy?

Mr. Brown: The longer the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the less convincing he becomes. Let me remind him that the climate change levy originated in a proposal from a committee chaired by Lord Marshall, the president of the Confederation of British Industry. The proposal is revenue neutral for businesses and for manufacturing industry. There will be no revenue gain to the Treasury.
May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have done something that the Conservative party never did, by cutting corporation tax to the lowest level in the industrialised countries? We have also cut small business tax to the same level. Given that unemployment is at 1.5 per cent. in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—and in that of the shadow Chancellor—I should have thought that he would congratulate the Government on creating jobs. In my constituency, the Rosyth unemployed workers centre existed for 15 years under a Conservative Government, but will soon hold an emergency meeting to decide whether to disband because we have created jobs. If the Conservatives want to help us to create employment, they should start backing the new deal instead of attacking it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Married Persons Tax Allowance

Dr. Brian Iddon: What representations he has received on the impact of the withdrawal of the married persons tax allowance on those who receive DSS benefits. [125829]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Chancellor regularly receives representations on all aspects of the tax system.

Dr. Iddon: One of my constituents has lost more than £15 per month—even after all the Budget changes and his increase in benefit have been taken into consideration—largely due to the loss of the married couples allowance. He had to retire early because of cardiovascular disease and take incapacity benefit. Although he receives a small occupational pension, I do not consider him to be well off. Will my hon. Friend agree to look again at how the Budget 2000 has affected such incapacity benefit recipients?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend fully appreciates that, without all the facts, it is difficult to respond to individual cases. The relationship between tax reliefs and qualifying benefits in the DSS system is complex. Of course, I am prepared to look again, with my hon. Friend, at the particular circumstances of his constituent.
I remind my hon. Friend that the withdrawal of the married couples allowance was to enable the Government to focus on families with children and to start by helping the very poorest first. The children's tax credit, which will start next April and could be worth as much £8.50 a week to families, is being advertised and families are being written to directly to encourage them to apply. I am sure that he would agree that the Government should always start by helping those who are the poorest in our society.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Will the Government now apologise to those couples in which an older partner is of pensionable age after 5 April this year? They will now be up to £500 a year worse off as a direct result of the abolition of the pensioners married couples allowance.

Dawn Primarolo: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands that those pensioners who receive the married couples allowance will retain that—they have not lost it. With the withdrawal of the married couples

allowance, there are a number of other additions in the tax system for those aged under 65: the 10p starting rate for tax; the reduction to 22p; and the introduction of the children's tax credit, which will be worth up to £442 a year—far more than the married couples allowance. There are several other benefits in the system.
The hon. Gentleman sat on the Treasury Select Committee so he knows all that. Instead of saying that pensioners are losing their married couples allowance, he should remind people that those pensioners who receive it are keeping it.

Mr. Simon Thomas: That is all very well, but does the hon. Lady not realise how the withdrawal of the married couples allowance for pensioners discriminates against male pensioners of 64 years of age? How does she justify that?

Dawn Primarolo: Pensioners will qualify at the age of 65 for the age-related allowance. That will put them in a far better position than non-pensioners. They will have the winter allowance of £150 that they have not previously received. They will have the benefit of the tax changes of 10p and 22p. The hon. Gentleman just wants to cherry-pick; he does not want to look at the whole set of changes to see how people's positions are being improved. He is considering only one of those changes. I encourage him to consider the matter in the round.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIPC

Ms Julia Drown: What assessment he has made of the time scale for the implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [125830]

Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on his discussions with the IMF on debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries. [125839]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The funding available for debt relief is proceeding this year. Five countries—Uganda, Bolivia, Mauritania, Mozambique and Tanzania—have already reached their decision points under the enhanced initiative agreed at Cologne last year. Another four—Senegal, Burkina Faso, Honduras and Benin—are expected to come to the boards for their decision points before the G8 Summit in Japan next month.
To speed up the timetable, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I wrote to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the chairman of the World Bank suggesting a joint implementation unit; that has now been set up and has begun its work. This week, we sent two officials to Washington to work with it.
We shall continue to work closely with our G8 partners, the IMF and the World Bank to ensure that what the whole world wants is achieved—further progress on debt relief for those countries where poverty reduction is essential.

Ms Drown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Although the Government deserve much congratulation for leading the way on debt relief, thousands of people in this country expected more debt relief to have been


achieved by now. I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little more specific about the concrete proposals that the Government will take to the Okinawa summit, so that we can hope—in this new millennium—for the debt relief needed to ensure that the huge waste of life that we see at the moment becomes a thing of the past.

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend and colleagues in the House for their work in publicising the international debt issue. We have agreed that there will be £100 billion of debt relief, and we have set up the implementation unit in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to consider the issues affecting individual countries. It is unfortunate that 11 of the potential recipients of debt relief are now in civil war or in conflict. That makes it difficult to agree solutions to their problems and to have the guarantee that the money will go to poverty reduction. However, we are continuing with our efforts to make progress on this matter and new proposals will be made at the Japan summit.
I can inform my hon. Friend that the funding problem, which was the immediate blockage last year, has been solved for this year. We must now ensure that countries that are ending or moving out of civil wars can get debt relief as quickly as possible and that those that are not in civil war can get through the process with speed. That is our aim.

Mr. Colman: I wish to mention a country that is not in civil war and that has recently returned to democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the leader in the Financial Times of 19 June which argued for Nigeria's inclusion in the HIPC initiative—a call that was backed up from the United States by Larry Summers and from the Commonwealth by Chief Emeka Anyaoku, who this week returns to Nigeria? Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence at the IMF and the World Bank to press for the inclusion of Nigeria in the HIPC initiative? There is a crucial need for Nigeria to be backed on its return to democracy, given its importance to the region.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in Nigeria. Since Nigeria returned to democracy, we have taken an interest in trying to help it speed through the process of both debt reduction and economic recovery. Two proposals are being worked through at the moment. The first is to achieve agreement on the IMF programme that would provide help to Nigeria in the short and the long term, and the other is to move forward with the Paris Club creditors to secure the necessary debt relief.
As my hon. Friend knows, the scale of the debt problems in Nigeria is enormous. The problems that have built up over the years are difficult to solve, but the two initiatives, in which Britain has led the way since Nigeria's return to democracy, will be pursued vigorously with the rest of the world community.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): The Chancellor deserves congratulations on following with such energy the precedent set by the former Prime Minister on the debt relief operation. Will the right hon.

Gentleman assure us that, when debt relief is given, the monitoring of whether the money thus saved is duly spent on health and education, as is the intention, is robust?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I support everyone on both sides of the House who has made the effort to make debt reduction a central issue for the world community.
The conditionality is that the money that was previously spent on debt should go to health, education or anti-poverty programmes. It is because we have now agreed, as international institutions, that countries must sign up to a poverty reduction strategy that it is possible for money to be spent in that way, and to monitor how it is spent. For example, Uganda has promised that, when it receives the debt relief, it will use it to halve the pupil-teacher ratio in its schools from 100:1, which is an appalling rate for a country in any part of the world, to 50:1. We want the countries that receive debt relief to introduce such measures.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I, too, welcome the Chancellor's announcement about the further progress made by the original 10 countries to meet the HIPC conditions. However, what personal representations have the British Government made, either directly to the countries or through the World Bank, to ensure that countries in civil war meet the conditions of good governance? They should be able to see how, by meeting the conditions of good governance and getting rid of the problems of civil war, they could be helped into the HIPC initiative, and that would improve the standard of living of their peoples.

Mr. Brown: That is exactly the message that has gone out, particularly from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who should be praised for making fighting corruption as well as good governance a central issue with every country that she talks to about debt relief and poverty reduction. The Government have also offered countries that are either moving out of conflict or simply trying to solve debt relief problems specific help in making representations to the IMF and the World Bank and, indeed, in convening as a group of countries so that they can make far greater progress with international institutions. I am determined that we use this year to make as fast progress as possible, because that is one way in which we can respond to the massive expression of public opinion which demands that we have a solution to what has been an intractable problem for years.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend's initiative in persuading the G7 countries to reduce the debt of heavily indebted poor countries is greatly appreciated, but globalisation is steaming on and poorer countries are not sharing in the wealth thus created. Today, Oxfam will report that 200 children an hour are dying in poorer countries, and that we are unlikely to reach the Copenhagen target of reducing the number of child deaths in the poorest countries by two thirds by 2015. Will he, as a matter of


urgency, attempt to persuade the G8 countries to act to cut debt and to make more resources available, so that poverty can be tackled?

Mr. Brown: It is true that 30,000 children die unnecessarily every day as a result of our failure to tackle poverty and malnutrition. Around the world, 200 million people, adults and children, can barely move their bodies because of hunger and suffering. It is incumbent on us to take a lead as a Government and as a country.
In the longer term, we need to replace the vicious circle of debt, poverty and underdevelopment with a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and economic development. To achieve those three aims, the IMF and the World Bank have been persuaded to have poverty reduction strategies for each of the poorest countries and to help those countries to make the transition to economic development. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is trying to do. As everyone knows, there is a world target to halve poverty by 2015. That is not enough in itself, but that is the target that we have set and we are determined to take action to meet it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Married Women (National Insurance)

Mr. Steve Webb: If he will estimate the number of married women who were paying national insurance in 1990-91 at the reduced rate for married women in circumstances where they would have paid less national insurance had they paid the full rate of national insurance contributions. [125832]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): In 1990–91, under the previous Government, about 60,000 married women could have paid more national insurance contributions at the reduced rate than if they had paid at the full rate. With effect from April 1999, the Government ended that situation.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for that estimate of the number of women suffering that injustice. Does she accept that those 60,000 women were paying more national insurance than other women in the same workplace, but receiving no pension rights, unlike their neighbours, and that that was bizarre, unjust and unfair? That injustice was created under the previous Government; will the hon. Lady do something to rectify it?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman knows that from 1948 to 1977, married women had the ability to elect to pay reduced national insurance contributions. Women had to apply for the reduced rate and sign a declaration stating that they fully understood that the reduced rate would mean reduced entitlement. That was changed in 1977 and the Department of Social Security ran publicity campaigns, both through employers and directly to individuals, to remind people that they could withdraw that declaration and return to making full contributions. The reasons why some women chose not to withdraw it are a matter for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Poverty

Judy Mallaber: What will be the impact on levels of child poverty of the changes to the working families tax credit announced in the Budget. [125833]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Budget increased the rates of income support and working families tax credit by £4.35 for each child under 16. As a result of that and of other changes to the tax and benefits system made during this Parliament, a family with two children on half average earnings will, by the end of the Parliament, be £2,600 a year better off.

Judy Mallaber: During last week's national child minding week and the preceding child care week, I spoke to parents and child care providers in my constituency about the value of the child care tax credit linked to the working families tax credit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit are among the most important weapons the Government can use against child poverty, because they both boost family incomes and give parents real choices on whether to enter paid employment? Will he tell the House how many parents currently receive the child care tax credit and will he take further steps to promote its take-up?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is quite right. Well over 100,000 people have taken up the child care tax credit, which has been a big success and represents almost three times the level of payment under the earnings disregard in family credit. We are ensuring that every applicant for the working families tax credit knows about the child care tax credit and, as my hon. Friend asked, we shall continue to draw attention to it. We shall also remind families that the Opposition would abolish it if they had the chance.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister look into a problem that one of my constituents has raised with me? She has received the working families tax credit through the post office since its introduction. She now has to switch to getting the credit from her employer, and is moving from receiving it in advance to receiving it in arrears, which is causing her real financial problems in looking after her children. Also, the money that the post office was earning for paying out the credit has been removed. Will the Minister look into the possibility of people receiving the credit through post offices and not necessarily through employers?

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges the importance of the working families tax credit in helping many people to return to work. I am pleased that so many people have taken it up. I am certainly happy to look at any individual case that the hon. Gentleman may wish to draw to my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — Mobile Telephone Licences

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the revenue received from the auction of the third-generation mobile telephone licences. [125834]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Receipts from the third-generation mobile spectrum auction will total £22.5 billion. That is good news. We have already received £12 billion, and I told the House on 17 April that those proceeds would be used to reduce net debt. On Monday 12 June, we set out how we plan to do that.

Mr. Hoyle: That is very good news. Can we make it even better for certain parts of the population? This Government have helped pensioners after 18 years in which they were neglected. Here is a golden opportunity to help them even more by introducing free television licences for all pensioners. Alternatively, can full consideration be given to a windfall for all pensioners using third-generation money? If we are using that money to reduce debt, perhaps we can put the debt repayments that we will save ourselves towards helping pensioners.

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestions. Of course, the whole country benefits from reduced debt payments and reduced debt interest achieved as a result of having diminished the millstone of debt that we inherited from the Conservatives. People are already benefiting because debt interest payments are £4 billion lower than they were when the Conservatives left office. That enables us to re-allocate resources to priorities such as pensioners, health and education. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that pensioners will share the benefit of that £22.5 billion.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Government treat the receipt of telecom licence fees as a revenue item, which would suggest that they intend to spend it eventually? Or will they treat it as a capital item, which would mean that they intend to bank it? Which option will they take under their new resource accounting rules?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman implies, the £21 billion will accrue over the 21 years of the licence, and that is how the sum is treated in the national accounts. Because it accrues over that period, the benefit is also spread over 21 years. Reducing net debt is, therefore, the prudent way of helping the public finances and benefiting the public through reduced debt interest payments, as I explained. The receipt does not alter the total managed expenditure projections set out in the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions — Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Keith Darvill: What representations he has received from businesses on his decision to cut capital gains tax for long-term investments. [125835]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): This year's Budget proposals for the improvements in the capital gains tax business assets taper were formulated after wide consultation with venture capitalists and others.

The views of business on the proposals to use taper reform to boost productivity and increase the provision of risk capital have been very positively received.

Mr. Darvill: It is refreshing that we have a Government who are taking measures that will increase the flow of investment and are widely supported, particularly by owners of small and medium enterprises. Will my hon. Friend tell the House about any other measures that she may be considering to increase investment in businesses which will help to create more jobs and prosperity?

Dawn Primarolo: I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges that the vast majority of people will receive a significant benefit from these provisions. I think that he may have been referring to proposals for new deferral relief on corporation tax paid by companies in respect of capital gains or on disposal of large shareholdings. A consultation document on the matter will be published shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — Euro

Dr. Julian Lewis: What discussions he has had with (a) the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and (b) the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the timing of any move to replace the pound by the euro. [125837]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999. The Government have said that they will recommend joining a successful single currency only if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous.

Dr. Lewis: I hesitate, Madam Speaker, even to dream of usurping your job, but I am not sure that that was an answer to the question that I asked, which was whether the Chancellor had met the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to discuss factors determining their decision to join the single European currency. I even spared the Chancellor's blushes by not including the Foreign Secretary in that list.
Is it not the case that if the Chancellor ever gets back on speaking terms with any of his ministerial colleagues, the test that they will be discussing will be not the economic tests with which he is so fixated or the Euro-federalist test with which his colleagues are so fixated, but the size of the overwhelming majority of the British people—two thirds—who are resolutely opposed to abandoning our economic and political sovereignty by replacing the pound with the single currency? Is that not what it is really about?

Miss Johnson: I am afraid that, according to the Tory party, Paul Sykes will decide what is in the national


economic interest. We believe that there should be a referendum and that the people of the UK should decide what is in our national economic interest.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was wondering whether the representations that have been made on the euro include representations from Mr. Ian Campbell, who was mentioned earlier in this Question Time by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) as a director of a national charity, which indeed he is. The charity that he directs is the Institute of Export, which regularly echoes the language of the Conservative party in its broadcasts, and which has nothing to do with dealing with child poverty and the other issues that we were discussing at the time.

Madam Speaker: Order. That question was totally out of order, and does not relate to the original question. Let us try somebody else.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely unity of purpose within the Government on the single currency? Is not that the most enormous contrast with what happened under the last Conservative Government, when we had Conservative MPs putting out different general election manifestos and we even had the previous Conservative Prime Minister describing three of his Cabinet colleagues as the illegitimate ones?

Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Tory party has always been split on Europe and on the euro. A survey in The Daily Telegraph of 50 prospective Conservative candidates suggests that the party is shifting even further to the right on Europe, if that is possible. Out of those 50 candidates, 33 take a harder anti-European stance than the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): The House will draw its own conclusions from the fact that the Chancellor prefers to speak on charities and unemployment in the north-east than on the euro or pensions. Notwithstanding the fact that he will be sitting immediately behind the Economic Secretary, might she care to tell the House, assuming that the conditions of entry are met in the Chancellor's opinion, why she thinks Britain should join the euro and what the advantages are?

Miss Johnson: We have said that we will consider whether we meet the five economic tests early in the next Parliament and that we will do so in terms of our national economic interest, which includes the 3.5 million jobs that are highly dependent on our continued membership of the EU—something that is deeply in question with Conservative Members.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Can I lob my hon. Friend a very friendly question? Can I tell her that, when I meet business men in my constituency, they ask me, "When can we have the referendum?", and I tell them, "I guess it'll be in 2002"—discuss?

Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very helpful question. Of course, early in the next Parliament, we will look at how we are meeting the economic tests that we have set ourselves, and then we

will decide whether it is right to put it to the British people. It should be remembered that, in all of this, we have at heart Britain's economic interests and that we play a constructive role in the EU. In the past few days, we have secured a victory for the United Kingdom's national interest on the withholding tax, so it is clear what a constructive role in Europe can do for this economy and its people.

Mr. Michael Portillo: May I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will come to regret his decision not to answer this question, because it speaks volumes about the state of the Labour party that he is not willing to answer a question on the central economic issue of the day—the Government's position on the euro? Will the Economic Secretary, who has been put in this hapless position, admit that only one of the five economic tests that have been set out by the Chancellor could in any way be thought of as being objective—even that could be massaged by the Chancellor—and that the other four tests are wholly subjective? The potential effect of the euro on unemployment, on the City, on flexibility and on investment are merely matters of opinion, on which different members of the Cabinet will doubtless take different views in due course. The tests that he has set out offer Britain no protection whatever against a potentially catastrophic decision. Will the Financial Secretary accept that the five economic tests amount to little more than four fudges and a fiddle?

Miss Johnson: That is complete rubbish. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to comment on whether he supports his earlier statements on Europe, including that in "A Vision for the 1990s"—published by the Conservative Political Centre in 1992—in which he said that the British people and British business in particular did not want to be left out of Europe. Does he agree with that statement, or does he wish to retract it?

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioner Incomes

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What plans he has to increase pensioner incomes. [125838]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): As announced in the Budget, next April, we will again increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, and we will double its lower capital limit. We are also developing a new pensioner credit to reward those pensioners who have made some provision for themselves.

Mr. Blizzard: Although the Government are spending more on pensioners through the minimum income guarantee and the winter payments than if the earnings link had been restored, and although it has to be right to help the poorest pensioners first, is my hon. Friend aware that many, many pensioners are still unhappy with the situation? Is not the problem the 1.1 per cent. index inflation figure from last September, which has failed to maintain the value of the basic pension? In making plans for next year, will she ensure that a realistic inflation index is used? Will she make up for the shortfall in this year's figure? If she can add something more, it will be even clearer that the Government are committed to


increasing pensioner incomes, unlike the Conservative party, whose policy of giving with one hand and taking away with the other would give pensioners only 42p.

Dawn Primarolo: On current inflation forecasts, we expect the basic state pension rise in April 2001 to be more than £2 for single pensioners and more than £3 for couples. Over the Parliament, the Government are

spending more than £2 billion more in real terms on pensioners than if we had restored the earnings link in the state pension. The combination of measures—the winter allowance, the change to the capital limits for the minimum income guarantee, the level of the income guarantee and the fact that it is pegged to earnings—in addition to the development of pensioner tax credits is the way forward to ensure that those who are poorest get the help that they urgently need.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the right hon. Lady to give the House the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Motion relating to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by the remaining stages of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 27 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Limited Liability Partnership Bill [Lords], followed by the remaining stages of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
THURSDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "Priorities in the NHS" on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 30 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 3 JULY—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion whose subject is to be announced.
TUESDAY 4 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords]. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 6 JULY—Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day]. At 7 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 7 JULY—Debate on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House of business to be taken in Westminster Hall during July.
THURSDAY 6 JULY—Debate on the development of Community Legal Services.
THURSDAY 13 JULY—Debate on EC development assistance.
THURSDAY 20 AND THURSDAY 27 JULY—Debates on Select Committee reports are scheduled, both subjects to be announced.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week.
The House was hoping for the date of the summer recess, not least because it was hinted at by one of the right hon. Lady's ministerial colleagues in a speech in Westminster Hall yesterday.
In the Queen's Speech, it was announced that legislation would be introduced to improve the education of children with special educational needs. As the parliamentary Session matures, what has happened to that Bill and, indeed, to the Disqualifications Bill, which the

House dealt with, at some inconvenience, in January and which has subsequently sunk without trace? Is that not further evidence of a badly managed legislative programme?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Government would produce a plan in the next few days to strengthen the post office network. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that will be outlined in an oral statement, given the widespread concern about the matter? In villages in my constituency, fashionable addresses such as the old rectory and the old school house are now being joined by the old post office.
Before the House rises for the summer recess, will we have the third of the three armed forces debates, this one on procurement, given widespread concern about redundances at British Aerospace? Would it be reasonable to assume that the Chancellor will be making his statement on the comprehensive spending review in the second of the two weeks? What has happened to the arrangements for discussing the economy?
Following our exchange last week, when there was widespread support for a public holiday to commemorate the 100th birthday of the Queen Mother, has the right hon. Lady had the promised discussion with the Home Secretary?

Mrs. Beckett: I should have liked to be able to give the recess date today, and I apologise that I am not able to do so. I said some time ago that I hoped that the House would not need to sit in August, and that hope has strengthened. That is all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman today.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the debate on special educational needs. I am aware that that matter is being considered. He will know that since the Bill was first proposed, there has been a pertinent, relevant, but unfortunately rather late further report about disability, which my right hon. Friend is considering alongside earlier proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Disqualifications Bill. The Session is not yet at an end, and the Bill has had some hearing in the House. If I recall correctly, it had an extensive hearing.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me also about the Post Office. I anticipate that when proposals for the Post Office come forward, there is likely to be an oral statement. As for his reference to the address, the old post office, no doubt in rural areas like the one he represents there are already such addresses—so many post offices closed under the Government of whom he was such a star member.
As for the armed forces debate, I am aware of the pressure last week in the context of British Aerospace. I cannot announce a debate in Government time, but I have announced a number of opportunities in Opposition time, for which Conservative Members can press their right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope and anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make a statement about the comprehensive spending review in the not too distant future.
As for whether there should be a holiday to celebrate the Queen Mother's birthday, I undertook last week to raise the matter with the relevant authorities, and have done so.

Fiona Mactaggart: I wonder whether we could have an opportunity soon to discuss the work of


the Modernisation Committee and the hours of the House. Many of us had hoped that we would be able to discuss these matters and come to conclusions before the end of the Session; I had hoped that we might hear some news today.

Mrs. Beckett: The matter remains under discussion in the Modernisation Committee. It is my hope that in the not too distant future the Committee may have reached conclusions that it is in a position to lay before the House in a report. I cannot, of course, anticipate the judgment of the Committee. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Session does not end until the autumn.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Bearing in mind the rather strange sequence of events surrounding Question 12 in the Chancellor's Question Time, will the Leader of the House provide time for him to make a statement on the euro and his approach to it? If he is too busy, perhaps she can persuade the Foreign Secretary to come instead.
May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 526?
[That this House notes that the 1986 Social Security Act introduced a halving of widows' SERPS entitlements in respect of deaths occurring after April 2000; notes that DSS leaflets and correspondence failed to reflect that change for at least a decade after the Act reached the statute book, leading to an investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman; notes that many more pensioners who were not actively misled by these leaflets nonetheless knew nothing about the change until they were too old to make realistic alternative provision; and therefore calls on the Government not only to compensate those future pensioners who were misled but also to exempt from the proposed cut any person who has already reached state pension age.]
There continue to be real anger and dismay at the failure to correct the Conservatives' administrative blunder, going back more than 10 years. Can the right hon. Lady find time for a Minister to explain to the House in detail how those affected can establish a claim and receive compensation for that major pensions mis-selling scandal?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I did not hear Question 12 at Treasury questions, but I see not the smallest necessity for the Chancellor to come to the House in order to repeat what he and all of us have said on hundreds of occasions. The tendency of the press to try to reinterpret a policy that has not changed over the past two to two and a half years is deeply boring, and it is even more boring when that keeps happening in the House.
With regard to widows' SERPS entitlement, the hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers have the matter under consideration and are in the process of seeing what can be done to rectify what he rightly calls a serious case of pensions mis-selling. He might, of course, press the official Opposition to raise the matter during their time, as it is they who were responsible.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Ministers discuss

the health service next week, it would be helpful if they could make clear not only the short-term implications of a massive transfer of NHS funds into the private sector for the short-term care and treatment of NHS patients, but the long-term effects on the NHS? Ministers should also make clear the need for people being treated in the private sector to enjoy not only the same standards of care, but protection in terms of insurance and the ability to sue anyone who is not providing that high level of care, if they have been transferred without their consent into the private sector.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely well aware that it is important to the Government, as to individuals, that NHS patients be treated in the private sector only if the standards that we would all expect are preserved. I know that from time to time concerns have been expressed about those standards. Equally, my hon. Friend knows that it is the Government's intention to announce in the not too distant future proposals for a long-term plan for the health service, which should not only raise those standards, but make sure that people have access to NHS care. That is not the position that we inherited, as my hon. Friend knows, but I feel confident, Madam Speaker, that she will seek to catch your eye to make those points during the debate that has just been announced.

Mr. Peter Brooke: During the debate on the Lords, the Leader of the House expressed a commitment to set up soon a Joint Committee of both Houses. If the Government take the view that
Being democratic does not necessarily mean having elections—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 124.]—
what does the right hon. Lady think that being democratic does necessarily mean?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was in his place, so he will know that he did not repeat with absolute accuracy the words that I used. I am sure that that was an oversight on his part. It was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who made the remark to which he has referred. I share the view that an extra group of people elected to the second Chamber would not necessarily be an addition to democracy. If we and the people of this country want a means of electing people who then form the Government, which gives them a direct input into the use of power, it seems to me that that is best expressed through one superior Chamber and another that may give advice. That superior Chamber is this body, and I am surprised to learn that some Members of it do not wish it to remain so.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the new targets for waste recycling recently proposed for local authorities. Is she also aware that a number of waste disposal authorities are having difficulty reaching those targets because of the financial regime and the amount of investment in waste management plant, and because the landfill tax operates against such investment? Will she make time in the House for a debate on the matter, given the importance of the new targets to this country's approach to recycling in the future?

Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware that there is great concern throughout the country that we should pursue the


right policy on waste management and that all the details and implications of its implementation should be covered. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor of the House, which is under great pressure. However, I recommend the extra opportunities for debate and scrutiny of the Government that Westminster Hall provides.

Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that anorexia is a serious illness. However, will she advise us whether it would be possible for the Minister for Women to come to the House and explain the apparently ludicrous policy of having weight-watching police to monitor the number of appearances on television by fat people as compared with those by thin people? Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether the policy is simply a plot to ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister gets more television time? If so, Conservative Members heartily approve of it.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's punch line. The relevant Minister will attend Question Time on Tuesday week. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an article in the Daily Mail. I agree that anorexia is a serious and difficult subject, and I believe that some serious discussion took place yesterday about the way in which it can be tackled, but for me the tone of the article was set by a photograph on the next page—of two women wearing lampshades.

Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): My right hon. Friend will have seen report this week about the attack on the house of Margaret Dongo, who is a Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe. Margaret Dongo is the only Member from the Movement for Democratic Change because she is a courageous woman who had the guts to challenge the electoral malpractices of the ruling party. When I spoke to her the night before last, she told of her house being attacked by rocks and stones. She cowered under a table in fear of her life. My right hon. Friend also knows that elections take place in Zimbabwe this weekend. Will she consider a debate next week on their outcome and the difficulties that will remain whatever the result?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House deplores the violence to which my hon. Friend referred and the pressure that the opposition are under in Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend knows that the Government and, indeed, the whole House have repeatedly urged the right of the people of Zimbabwe to make their choice freely and fairly in the elections this weekend. The event that my hon. Friend described is a sharp reminder of how fortunate we are to have the political peace that we enjoy in this country.
I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wishes to keep the House informed. Perhaps a time scale will be set as the information comes in. I cannot give an undertaking for a debate at the moment, but I will bear my hon. Friend's observations in mind.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): In a week in which the flower of English cricket has been bundled out of a test match in three days, the flower of English football has been bundled out of Euro 2000, and the flower of English hooliganism has been bundled out of Belgium, the only people not able to move about much

were those who were trying to escape this country and who were paralysed by a computer failure at three of the main British airports and a broken rail on the London underground. Could we have a debate soon about when and whether life will improve under new Labour?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to the unfortunate lack of success of some of our sportsmen and women. I attribute a lot of that to the sale of school playing fields under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I know that the House of Lords is a problem for everybody and that we have had a big discussion of it, but I support the third way. The third option is to abolish the House of Lords. We could then have a revising Chamber of about 100 lawyers in this place; they could dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. We do not need a second Chamber. At least two countries do not have one. And now that we have got rid of the hereditary principle, why not abolish the monarchy as well?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure that that is what is conventionally regarded as the third way. I do know, however, that Lord Wakeham, for instance, believes that unless the second Chamber is a distinctly different Chamber bringing different experience to bear, there is no point in having it. In that sense Lord Wakeham is a unicameralist, as he has made plain, and—although it does not represent the policy that the Government are advocating—I understand the logic of that approach.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government agree that the second Chamber should be different and distinctive, and not a clone of, or competitor with, this Chamber. That is why we are minded to accept the broad proposals in the Wakeham report.

Mr. James Gray: The 8,500 multiple sclerosis sufferers who would benefit from beta interferon will be bitterly disappointed by the Prime Minister's airy dismissal of the question asked during yesterday's Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I rather suspect that, by now, the Prime Minister himself may regret having so cheaply dismissed the concerns of those who are worried about the leak from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Is it not time the Government found time for a debate on the way NICE works? Should we not debate not just the question of the drug's cost-effectiveness—which it may be reasonable for NICE to consider—but why civil servants, professors and doctors are considering the issue of affordability? Affordability is at the heart of the decision about beta interferon. Is it not time that the House engaged in a full debate to discuss the implications?

Mrs. Beckett: I utterly contest—as I think anyone who heard him would—the notion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister airily dismissed the concerns of MS sufferers. He did no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman should know if he was present yesterday—and I think, from memory, that he was.
It is nonsense to suggest that NICE is making decisions simply on grounds of cost. Only last week, it ruled that taxane drugs for the treatment of breast and ovarian cancer,


which are also very expensive, should be made available throughout the health service. That did not happen under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. The hon. Gentleman should also know, as there have been television interviews and so on, that there is some difference of view in the medical profession about the effectiveness of beta interferon. In any event, he must be aware that conclusions have not yet been reached. These are preliminary views which are out for consultation.
What I found most striking yesterday was the sheer opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. As recently as 11 May, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Opposition health spokesman, said:
In any limited budget, priorities have to be set. These must be on the basis of clinical need, not political convenience.
That is quite correct, but it is not what the hon. Gentleman is saying—and he may have noticed that there is a health debate next week.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative party has set up a commission to consider the modernisation of Parliament? I believe that it is due to report at about the same time as the Modernisation Committee. Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity, preferably before the recess, for the two important reports to be debated? The issue is pressing for many of us, and such a debate might just give us a unique opportunity to secure cross-party consensus.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the timetable for the Conservative party commission report, and I have no idea whether it is likely to be produced before the recess. I am not sure whether I would be able to find time for a debate before the House rises for the summer but, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), these matters are under consideration.
I hope that there will be a report from the Modernisation Committee in the near future, and that it will help the House to reach some views. If such a report is produced, however, and if the House can pronounce on it, the matter must be resolved before the next Session. That seems to me to be the important thing, rather than the precise timing of any possible debate.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate on the reliability, and extent of commitment, of ministerial statements? Can the debate please be led by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Can we have, before the debate commences—although I hope that it is held very soon—a full briefing from the chief inspector of Ofsted? That would enable us to assess how far the Secretary of State should be taken seriously, as he made an important commitment to resign his office if an important educational target was not met. We could also include a much wider-ranging debate involving several other Ministers, in order that we could judge their statements and commitments appropriately.

Mrs. Beckett: There are regular opportunities to discuss issues with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in the Chamber. He did indeed make

that commitment. He and his Department are well on course to deliver the targets that they have set. I thought that those who wished to see better government would applaud the Government's determination both to set targets and to ensure that they are achieved.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend will recall that, on Tuesday, the House was asked to consider the Second Reading of a Bill after 10 o'clock at night. That resulted in the House rising at about 1.30 am. It afforded another splendid period of nocturnal playtime for the kindergarten group on the Opposition Benches, but it did nothing to enhance the reputation of the House of Commons. Three years into the modernisation programme, the question of hours and the sensible organisation of business must be resolved. Will she ensure that the House has an early opportunity to come to a view and a decision on that?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have said repeatedly that I think that no hon. Member objects to being here for long hours on occasion when there are matters of real substance, importance and delicacy to be addressed, but I accept that there are occasions when that is not always judged to be the case. I am also mindful of the need not to curtail debate.
I have some proposals. We have given much thought to whether it is possible to reconcile these two difficult elements. I hope that it will prove to be so. It is more important to achieve improvements in the efficiency of the way in which the House works than to be perhaps excessively nervous about the precise time that takes to achieve.

Mr. Graham Brady: May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider her response to a request for a debate on the role and remit of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, given that, on Tuesday, a number of Members on both sides of the House from the north-west of England had meetings with leading neurologists, who made it clear that there is consensus in the profession that beta interferon is an effective drug for many multiple sclerosis sufferers?
In that context, is it not important that NICE should not just take a view based on the cost to the national health service budget, but bear in mind the enormous cost to welfare budgets and social service budgets, and the costs in lost earnings and lost tax revenue, which arise from the avoidable sickness of so many people?

Mrs. Beckett: I am very conscious of the concern felt by many people with MS, and that a strong body within the profession believes that beta interferon will help some sufferers, although the hon. Gentleman should be aware that it will not necessarily help all sufferers. He will know, I hope, that there is no suggestion in the NICE report that those who receive beta interferon should cease to receive it. The report is out for consultation. It is a preliminary report in draft. Neither I nor any other Member has seen it.
Yet again, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the sensible remarks of the shadow health spokesman, which I anticipate will, in consequence, be repeated in the debate in the House next week, pointing out that there has to be


a system of clear, explicit and transparent priority setting, and that not to have such a system—it is exactly what NICE is—would mean putting our heads in the sand and pretending that the problem did not exist. That is what some Opposition Members seem to be trying to do.

Ms Jenny Jones: Following the front-page story in today's Daily Record that Mike Tyson has physically assaulted someone so that they required hospital treatment, can my right hon. Friend arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement on whether he will review the conditions of Mike Tyson's entry into this country, bearing in mind the fact that one of the reasons for allowing him entry was that he was not considered a threat to anybody outside the boxing ring?

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the matter that she raises. I have not seen the story to which she refers, nor indeed do I know whether it is well founded. May I draw to her attention the fact that it is Home Office questions on Monday, so she might find an opportunity to raise the matter then?

Mr. David Heath: Can the right hon. Lady give us any indication of when the House will have the opportunity to discuss the ratification of the statute for the International Criminal Court? Given the number of individuals around the world who would benefit from the attentions of such a court—not least General Mladic, Mr. Milosevic and Foday Sankoh—is it not extraordinary that Britain took the lead in setting it up, yet we are one of the Parliaments that is slowest to undertake the necessary ratification procedure? The House deals with a number of other measures that may be of less consequence; this is of international importance. Is it not time we got on with it?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that no one is more mindful of pressure on the legislative timetable than I am. He will know that the ratification that he seeks will require further legislation. Although I would have hoped that the matter was not particularly controversial across the House, the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that matters that one would not have considered controversial have taken up a considerable amount of time this Session. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is making a bid for the next Queen's Speech and he will know that I cannot comment on that.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact that the Home Office working group that has been looking into forced marriages will report at the end of this month? Does she agree that it would give a great deal of encouragement to many young Asian women in my constituency and throughout west Yorkshire were we to have a debate on the outcome of that report?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in this subject and has done a great deal of work on it. Although I am aware of the existence of the working group, which does extremely important work, I was not aware that the report was likely to emerge on that timetable and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter on the

Floor of the House, but it is exactly the kind of issue that she might seek an opportunity to raise in Westminster Hall.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady agree to a early debate in Government time on the excessively high fuel duties and their adverse impact on road hauliers, other industries, not least the farming community, and those of us who live in rural villages and communities? It would also enable the Government to explain to the wider British public why two separate formulae were used to calculate the inflation rate for pensions and for fuel duties.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady raises the issue of the impact of high fuel duty, which has been much discussed in the House. She will know that an escalator was introduced on fuel duties for environmental reasons and that the precedent was set by the Conservative Government. This Government continued to follow that precedent for some time, although we have now ceased to do so. The hon. Lady will also know that the index on which the level of inflation for the pension increase was judged was set many years ago by the Conservative Government and this Government have not changed it, although these matters are reviewed from time to time. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate in Government time, although I have no doubt that in various ways they will continue to be raised.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: At a meeting of the all-party group on leasehold reform the other evening, Ministers indicated that a draft Bill would appear in the next month or so. Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to take further with her ministerial colleagues the discussions that were mentioned at business questions earlier this year? I refer to whether a Scrutiny Committee could examine the proposed legislation, which will introduce for the first time in English law a new form of property tender.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend—who takes a close interest in the subject, which is of considerable importance in his constituency—makes the interesting suggestion that the draft Bill ought to be subject to some form of pre-legislative scrutiny. I undertake to raise that matter with the ministerial colleagues primarily concerned.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Notwithstanding this afternoon's debate on the intelligence agencies, may we have at least a statement on the activities of another intelligence agency operating in the House—given truly shocking reports that Labour party researchers have admitted to habitually eavesdropping on a right hon. Gentleman and passing that intelligence to 10 Downing street? Does the right hon. Lady recall the fate of a politician on the other side of the Atlantic who encouraged such practices?

Mrs. Beckett: I have heard of such reports but am not aware that anybody has admitted to habitual eavesdropping on the leader of the Liberal party. If anyone employed as a so-called political adviser has been doing so, they should be sacked for incompetence.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great dismay and


disappointment among not scores but hundreds of hon. Members of all parties at the news that the House will not debate before the summer recess the urgent matter of modernisation? Many of us are getting fed up with a few Conservative Members jerking at the end of their chain to frustrate the clear will of the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. I ask my right hon. Friend not to say definitely today that we will be denied the opportunity to debate that matter before the summer.

Mrs. Beckett: I try never to say anything definitive during business questions. I do not definitively rule out such a debate, but at present one seems unlikely. I do not fully understand the concern as to whether or not the matter is debated before the summer recess. If such a report emerges and is debated, the important point is that a decision be made in time for it to become effective at the only point when it could be given effect to—perhaps in a new parliamentary Session. I assure my hon. Friend that I have in no way lost sight of the matter.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Given that time is drawing on, may I give the Leader of the House the opportunity to say yes to a request for a debate? The right hon. Lady has considered sympathetically in the past the fate of people living in Kingskerswell and the lack of a bypass there. Holcroft Fox has now reported that the people of Kingskerswell are entitled to relief and that only a bypass can provide it. Will the right hon. Lady urgently find time for a debate, so that the Government can clarify their position on the construction of bypasses? If they mean to go ahead with the building programmes they have suggested, there is one ready and waiting to start.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future but I will draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Transport the hon. Gentleman's strong view that there is an urgent need to implement that project. My noble Friend anticipates making some proposals about his transport plan in the not too distant future.

Helen Jones: Has my right hon. Friend yet heard when the Government's response to the Stewart report might be available? When it is available, will she ensure that we have a debate in the House on the issues surrounding mobile phones and the erection of mobile phone masts? The latter is an issue of great concern to many of my constituents, not least in my own village of Culcheth. Will she draw those concerns to the attention of Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so that the House has an opportunity to review the laws that were brought in by the previous Government, which give residents little or no chance to make their views known through the planning process before the masts are erected?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, not least because it enables me to say from the Dispatch Box that that concern is deeply felt in my constituency, where several residents are running a strong local campaign. I fully understand the concern that is being expressed. There has been an initial response to the Stewart report, and consideration is being given to the

planning implications, but of course I undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. John Hayes: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the rally and lobby of the House today by the British Weights and Measures Association, which is fighting a laudable, vigorous and patriotic campaign to prevent further metrication of our weights and measures. Will she confirm that Ministers will make time to meet the association today? Will she also confirm that we will have a statement responding to its legitimate requests to protect the interests of small traders especially, who have already buckled under the burden of £5 billion of extra red tape from this Government and who face further regulation through the programme to get rid of British imperial measurements?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not know what pressure ministerial diaries are under, but of course I recognise the strong concern that has been long expressed by the British Weights and Measures Association. All that I can do is ask the hon. Gentleman where he was when the previous Government made the changes. This Government have already once, if not twice, postponed the implementation of the measures because we are mindful of their impact on small traders. It is yet another example of Opposition Members deploring things that they themselves did.

Mr. Paul Flynn: With her deep knowledge of social security, my right hon. Friend was, I am sure, burning the midnight oil last night reading the fascinating report by the Social Security Committee on the contributory principle, which was published yesterday. The report drew attention to the long-standing unfairness in the national insurance fund whereby contributions are increased annually by the higher rate of inflation, but benefits—including pensions—are paid out at the lower rate of inflation. As the report makes clear, the national insurance fund has an unneeded surplus, above the contingency funds, of £6 billion, which will grow considerably over the next 20 years, thus allowing the link between pensions and earnings—the higher rate of inflation—to be restored now and in the future.
Can we debate early-day motion 1?
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to raise income support for pensioners annually in line with average earnings, but regrets the widening gap between the basic pension and income support; notes the Treasury's estimate that by April 2002 the National Insurance Fund's balance will be £8.43 billion above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary; and urges that part of that surplus should be used to restore the link between the basic pension and average earnings for the remaining years of this Parliament, thus ensuring that all pensioners share in the nation's increasing prosperity and preventing a further increase in the number receiving income support.]
By doing so, the Government could add to the magnificent and beneficial measures that they have taken for pensioners, including the restoration of the link, as the nation's pensioners want.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. He will know that the Committee said in its report:
We do agree with the Secretary of State that any use of the present surplus in the national insurance fund must be sustainable in the long term.
He will also know that the Government are committed to improving the welfare of pensioners as fast as we can, but we have set as our priority giving the most to the pensioners who are, by definition, in the greatest need. We will continue to do that, and we shall also continue to try to assist other pensioners, but I fear it is a matter of the time needed to remedy the deficiencies that we inherited.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House try to persuade a defence procurement Minister to come to the House and make a statement about the unusual controversy in the Ministry of Defence over the naming of the next two Royal Navy survey vessels? They were to be named HMS Shackleton and HMS Cook. There is no problem with HMS Shackleton, but I understand that the name of the other vessel has met resistance in the Ministry of Defence.
If the right hon. Lady cannot do that, can she persuade a Foreign Office Minister to come to the House and explain why, when I tabled a written question on 13 April to ask whether Lord Levy had had contact with foreign intelligence and security agencies, it took until 7 June to get a one-line reply? It read:
In line with long standing practice of successive Governments we do not comment on intelligence matters.—[Official Report. 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 291W.]
Would she not agree that, if that was the right answer, it should have been given me two days after I posted the question, not two months?

Mrs. Beckett: I know nothing about the naming of ships commissioned for the Royal Navy. However, I do know that the contract that has been placed will sustain 800 jobs in Devon. That seems much more important than what the ships are called, although I have no doubt that that will be a matter of concern to someone.
Secondly, of course I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not get an answer to his question sooner. We continually remind colleagues of the importance of responding more speedily, but I fear that, as the answer revealed, there is nothing further that I can add on security and intelligence matters.

Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the real cost of rail travel in this country compared with other European countries? According to research that I commissioned from the Library, the standard inter-city fare from, say, Paddington to Cardiff costs twice as much as the fare for an equivalent journey in Belgium or France, and more than six times as much as in Italy. That is a direct result of the policies of the previous Conservative Government, although the train operating companies deny that and try to argue that British passengers get a fair deal.
Given the amount of taxpayer's money that subsidises fares in this country, does she not agree that passengers have a right to know whether they are getting ripped off by the train operators?

Mrs. Beckett: I have some sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that there is

considerable concern about fares in this country, especially in connection with the contracts signed with the rail operators. I know also that the Rail Regulator and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions keep the matter under review. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: May we have an early debate on the effect of this Labour Government on Parliament and on the democratic accountability of the Executive? Charter 88 has stated that the Prime Minister has created an elective dictatorship by concentrating power in Downing street, and that the result of his control freakery is that everything is managed from the centre. Would not an early full-day debate be the appropriate way to answer that charge?

Mrs. Beckett: I have rarely agreed with much of what Charter 88 says, and I do not propose to start now.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on developments in the steel industry? That is especially important because the Corus group is stripping out the industry's heart and creating thousands of redundancies throughout the United Kingdom. The situation is especially bad in my constituency. Strategic sectors of British industry are being closed down, so is it not about time for the voice of Parliament to be heard?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and I am very mindful indeed of the anxieties felt in constituencies such as his. He will know that steps have been taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities to offer help and support to those who unfortunately lose out as a result of the changes.
I also understand and accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others have concerns about manufacturing employment more generally. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend might like to consider Westminster Hall.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on democracy so that Conservative Members can talk about this week's Charter 88 report, which referred to the worrying concentration of power in the hands of the Executive? We could also talk about the burgeoning cost of government: more than £2 billion a year more is spent now than three years ago, and the number of special advisers funded by the taxpayer has doubled. Such a debate would also afford Labour Members the opportunity to talk about the matters that interest them, such as why they cannot get home to bed by 10 o'clock at night.

Mrs. Beckett: I have not read the Charter 88 report. I wholly reject the notion that there is something unseemly in the way in which the Government is being run and managed.


I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the figures for extra costs are completely spurious. The figures that Conservative Members continually use are simply the cash figures. In real terms, we are spending less on administration than did the Conservative party when it was last in government. Indeed, not only are we spending less, but the number of those employed in the public services at the centre has gone down, while the number of public servants in services such as health and education is rising and will continue to rise.
On special advisers, we take the view that Ministers should have a proper range of advice, and we take the same view with regard to the Opposition. The increase in advice to Government has been more than matched by the increase in advice to the Opposition, who are clearly in sore need of it.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that this morning, for some strange reason, the House failed to reach my Question 34 on taxation, I would like to ask the right hon. Lady for an early debate on the need for transparency in taxation. In the light of the criticism by the Select Committee on the Treasury of the Chancellor's refusal to publish the figures that show the impact of direct and indirect taxes on the typical household and on households in other income deciles, would not such a debate allow the Chancellor the opportunity to explain whether he will mend his ways and, if he will not do so, why on earth he expects to be taken seriously when he is picking the pockets of the British people on an unprecedented scale?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have given independence to the national statistical service, something that the previous Government never had the courage to do. That will, over time, undoubtedly increase confidence in the statistics that we publish—confidence that was sorely missing under the previous Administration.
As for the idea that the Chancellor should come here to debate the figures that he gives, I think that when he comes to the Dispatch Box we should debate the fact that we have the lowest inflation for a generation, the lowest mortgage rates for a generation, with the best levels of employment and the lowest levels of unemployment since 1980, which was the beginning of the Conservative party's term in office. Those are the issues that really matter to the British people, not the Conservative party's allegations.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 100(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),

That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet on Monday 10th July at half-past Ten o'clock at the Glasgow City Council former High School buildings, Glasgow, to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Security and Intelligence Agencies

[Relevant documents: Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 1998–99, Cm 4532, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4569;

Intelligence and Security Committee's Report on the Security and Intelligence Agencies' handling of the information provided by Mr. Mitrokhin, Cm 4764, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4765;

Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1998-99, HC 116, on Sierra Leone, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4325;

Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99, HC 291, on Accountability of the Security Service, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4588; and

First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 300, on Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive (paragraphs 90 to 92), and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4737 (paragraph 56).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Today is the second occasion in this Parliament that we have had the opportunity to debate intelligence and security issues. The three agencies together make a valuable and unique contribution to the safety and security of our society and, in an international context, to that of our allies.
The agencies provide us with a vital edge in tackling some of the most difficult problems that we face. They play a significant role in our efforts against terrorism, drugs and serious crime and in defence of our national security. Because of the necessary secrecy of their work, their contribution often goes unremarked and unacknowledged. Much of what they achieve cannot be given the recognition that it deserves. To do so would give those against whom the agencies work the opportunity to sidestep their efforts. It could very well also undermine the protection of those who already carry out their service to this country, sometimes at considerable personal risk.
Among other things, today's debate provides a welcome opportunity to thank the agencies and their staff for their valuable contribution. All of us who have had contact with the agencies—Secretaries of State and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee over the years—will readily acknowledge that they are world-class services. 
The reports before the House are two from the Intelligence and Security Committee, one from the Home Affairs Committee, one from the Foreign Affairs Committee and one from the Liaison Committee. Of these, the one that inevitably has attracted the most immediate attention is that of the Intelligence and Security Committee on Mitrokhin. For the convenience of the House, I shall deal with that report first.
On 13 September last year I announced that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I had invited the ISC to examine the policies and procedures adopted within the security and intelligence agencies for the handling of information supplied by


Mr. Vasili Mitrokhin. The Committee's report was published earlier this month alongside the Government's response and a parliamentary reply from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend and I are very grateful to the ISC, and not least to its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), for their readiness to take on the additional work thrown up by the handling of the Mitrokhin material and for the thoroughness of their report. The right hon. Gentleman has also generously acknowledged that his Committee was afforded unparalleled access to material beyond that of a Select Committee in order to carry out its inquiry.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that through his willingness, when pressed, to make available to the Committee all information, including advice to Ministers, he made possible the thoroughness of the report; that it would not have been possible for the Committee to reach conclusions on some matters had it not had that degree of access; and that lessons ought to be learned for the Committee's future access?

Mr. Straw: I certainly recognise the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's first point. As I and my right hon. Friends acknowledged, it would otherwise have been impossible to arrive at both a proper understanding of the story as it unfolded and proper conclusions. I also accept his other comment, without entering into any commitments about the exact boundary that we should draw, as a result of this experience, as to the extent to which the ISC should have access to material. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, from his long membership of the Committee, that there are some very important operational matters that the Committee itself acknowledges it would not be appropriate for it to have access to. I also believe that it would be inappropriate.
The main criticisms made by the Committee were of the failures of the Security Service in not referring cases to the prosecuting authorities in a timely manner and of failures by officials in the provision of advice to Ministers. However, there was no suggestion of any attempt to mislead Ministers. In the ISC reports, there was no criticism of Ministers in previous Administrations, nor of Ministers in the current Administration.
As the inquiry report made clear, and as the Government acknowledged in their response, mistakes were made in the handling of this material, not least in the decisions that were made and not made as to whether or not individuals should be prosecuted. The agencies as well as the central Departments concerned—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office—have learned a great deal from the report and this experience, and I believe that the lessons have been identified and accepted.

Mr. Michael Howard: Can the Home Secretary shed any light on paragraph 60 of the report, which records that in his statement on 13 September 1999 he had the opportunity to reflect on the Security Service's view of the significance of Mrs. Norwood's

activities but did not do so, and that, as a result, the public perception of Mrs. Norwood is that, in the words of the paragraph,
she provided a real contribution to the Soviet atomic bomb development
when in fact, in the view of the Security Service, she did not?

Mr. Straw: I shall do my best to answer. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his warning to me that he was likely to raise the matter.
The explanation is an unusual one but is entirely accurate, as indeed everything I say in this House is. It is that in the preceding week I had had an operation on a damaged cartilage in my knee and had undergone a general anaesthetic. I was on crutches and groggy for the rest of the week. On the Saturday morning, when I was telephoned to be told that various allegations had been made in The Times that, for example, I had blocked a prosecution of Melita Norwood, which was completely untrue, I was still coming round from the effects of the anaesthetic and was hoping for a quiet lie-in, although, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the prospects of that if one is Home Secretary are random and infrequent.
I returned to London from my constituency on the Sunday, having decided that I should issue a statement as soon as I had been able to go through the material. Officials worked on the Sunday to pull together all that I had seen over the period since May 1997. My recollection is that, as I was not in a position to make a proper judgment about whether or not Mrs. Norwood's position as a spy had been either of huge or of any significance, and as the public would not have taken comfort if I had merely repeated what I was being told, I decided that it was better left alone. That is my explanation.
With the benefit of history, we know that less damage was done by Mrs. Norwood's spying than might otherwise have been the case; in the event, as the report says on page 23, the Soviets copied American designs that they had obtained. However, during the time that she had access to highly secret material and was passing it to the Russians, her behaviour was damaging both because it was treacherous and because it had the potential to be extremely damaging to the interests of this country.

Mr. Tom King: Although there has been great concentration on the nuclear secrets that Mrs. Norwood may or may not have passed on, it is worth noting that she remained active for a considerable period after she had ceased to be directly involved in that area. It is alleged that she recruited another defector as late as 1969, which makes it clear that she was still considered to be of value to the Soviet Union.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose point suggests that my befuddled caution on Monday 13 September was well placed. He is quite right. Although it was clear, as I made plain in my public statement at the time—Parliament, of course, was not sitting—that Mrs. Norwood's direct access to highly classified material had ended in 1951, she remained active and was obviously seen by the Russians as having some importance.


We should not forget the positive points identified by the ISC's inquiry. They include confirmation of our success in obtaining Mr. Mitrokhin's material, which was, and remains, of huge significance to us and our allies. In addition, it confirms success in exploiting his material at home and abroad, and confirms that a decision to allow publication of a book on the material was correct and that much of the publication process—although not all of it—was sound. Finally, the report serves to highlight a point arising from the Mitrokhin material—namely, the effective work of the security and intelligence services in countering the significant and potentially damaging intelligence threat posed by the former Soviet Union.
The House will recognise the significance of the success of the ISC's inquiry. It demonstrates both the developing role of the Committee and its maturing relationship with the agencies. I am glad that there was no suggestion that the statutory accountability of any agency is inadequate, or that proper oversight and internal management are not taking place. By definition, the work of the agencies cannot be open. Proper mechanisms for scrutiny are, therefore, all the more important.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, since he entered the House in 1974, and I, since 1979, have been among Members of Parliament on both sides of the House concerned about the lack of a proper statutory base for the intelligence and security agencies and for the part of their operations to do with the interception of communications. A series of measures put that right: the Security Service Acts 1989 and 1996, for the Security Service, and the Intelligence Services Act 1994, for the Secret Intelligence Service and for the Government communications headquarters.
Those Acts, together with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, provide for independent scrutiny by commissioners of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in respect of the agencies for which we are responsible, and for scrutiny of the actions of the agencies themselves. Each officer in each agency has a duty under the law to provide the commissioners with the information they need.
I pay tribute to the work of the previous commissioners, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Nolan, for their contribution as commissioners and for the important scrutiny role that they played. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will confirm that the work of Lord Nolan—the interception commissioner—was very thorough indeed. The Home Secretary has the bulk of the responsibility for telephone interception—although the point also applies to successive Foreign Secretaries—and were any Home Secretary ever to think about approving a warrant without proper consideration, he would be brought up sharp by Lord Nolan. That fact would be made public—and quite right too. I am glad to say—on behalf of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself—that, so far, that has not happened.
Both commissioners retired from their role earlier this year. On behalf of the Government, the agencies and previous Ministers with whom they worked, I thank them warmly for their contribution.
We achieve accountability of the work of the agencies through the scrutiny of the ISC whose reports form the bulk of the subject of our debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not of interest that when David Bickford, the former legal adviser to the security and intelligence services, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last year, he said that the credit for oversight was due to the cases of our right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and our hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. It was because they had been targeted by the security services and had taken their cases to the European Court that it was decided that some oversight was essential. Perhaps we should acknowledge the important role played by our two parliamentary colleagues.

Mr. Straw: We shall not know exactly what went on under the previous Government until the records are made public. However, there is no doubt that those two cases played an important part in concentrating the mind of the Government on the need for the establishment of proper oversight.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Home Secretary agree that, from time to time, it is inevitable that the Security Service will look at the activities of people who subsequently become Members of Parliament? Bearing that in mind, what would he recommend as an appropriate recourse for such people if they were anxious to find out whether they had been wrongly targeted? Does he agree that it would be unacceptable for them to be able to demand to see their files and that perhaps someone else should do the job on their behalf? Will he take this opportunity to state that the request of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for such access will be refused?

Mr. Straw: As far as I am aware, no request has been made to me by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is waving a piece of paper at me. If he says that such a request has been made, I take his word for it. I am trying to satisfy him with the answer that I am about to give, so there is no need for him to wave something that has been pulled off the internet—even with my eyesight, I cannot read small type at that distance. I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be treated differently from anyone else before the law. That applies to cases of corruption, immunity from prosecution and matters relating to the security and intelligence agencies.
The House knows that the Security Service held inquiries into me over a period of years and that it holds a file on me. On one occasion, as I think the House knows, I was shown the file by a properly authorised officer of the Security Service, but I saw only one part of its contents. That was its decision; certainly not mine. I learned of that when I was positively vetted—successfully, I might say—in 1974 and I decided that I would never make public the facts that I had learned. Someone else decided to make the information public, but I have never sought to have access to that file. It would have been wholly improper if I had sought to do so, and


a reply in the negative will be given to any Member of this House who asks to see his file. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Lewis: indicated assent.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Make an exception of the hon. Gentleman's file.

Mr. Straw: I do not know whether there is a file on the hon. Gentleman.
There has been some debate—the matter has been raised by the Home Affairs Committee over the years—about whether scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies should be carried out by a Select Committee of the House or by a Committee of the kind that has been established. It needs to be made clear that that Committee is a parliamentary Committee and that, in some ways, it has clearer and stronger powers than a Select Committee because it has been established by an Act of Parliament.
I have always been relatively relaxed about what the Committee should be called because of two realities. First, the members who would be appointed to any Select Committee would be appointed in a similar manner to the way in which the members of the current Committee are appointed. Secondly, any Select Committee that was going to do its job properly would have to operate in a similar way to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, it is impossible to conceive of how it could operate in any other way if it were to be able to carry out the thorough inquiry that the ISC conducted into the Mitrokhin matter.
Although I know that the Mitrokhin saga has been uncomfortable for the agencies—one understands that—there is a silver lining. The case has emphasised the strength of the mechanisms that Parliament as a whole has agreed for the accountability of the agencies. It was a huge relief to me when I was faced with the situation over a weekend in early December that, instead of having to establish a specific inquiry led almost certainly by someone from outside the House, I was, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, able to telephone the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. I said that the case seemed to be exactly the type of issue on which Parliament would expect his Committee to conduct an inquiry. We had an altogether much more thorough inquiry than we might have had. It certainly commanded greater public and parliamentary support than one conducted by someone specifically brought in from outside.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On the issue of Select Committees, I have a copy of the Government's reply to the third report of the Home Affairs Committee on "Accountability of the Security Service". I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a Home Office comment that reads:
The Government is not convinced that there is a strong case for change in the fundamental structure of these arrangements
and the word "now" is added at the end.

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire): That was for you, Dale.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If so, I am thankful. I understand that the word "now" was the subject of intense debate. Because I cannot debate the matter today with someone from the civil service, will my right hon. Friend explain why it was added?

Mr. Straw: As the whole House knows, the Government are entirely seamless and joined up and we all agree with each other all the time.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Not a cigarette paper between them.

Mr. Winnick: I hope not.

Mr. Straw: I hope that no one has cigarette papers in the Chamber.
It follows that every word of the response has been carefully drawn and is subject to collective responsibility. I cannot remember whether it was I or someone else who inserted the word "now", but the point is clear: we are
not convinced that there is a strong case for change in the fundamental structure of these arrangements now.
It would be absurd to say that there should never be any change in the arrangements. We should always consider such matters in the light of experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been a member of the ISC for some time. The experience of the Mitrokhin report demonstrated the inherent merits of that Committee. That does not mean that we should never adopt the Select Committee path, but doing so is not as urgent as some once thought. I hope that that provides a helpful definition of what the Government meant by the word "now".
The work of the Committee has been strengthened by the appointment of an investigator to assist the Committee with its scrutiny. The investigator allows the Committee to pursue its inquiries in greater depth than would otherwise be possible and to follow up specific lines of inquiry in more detail. He operates within the same legal framework as the Committee, with the same level of access, but he also has the opportunity to discuss issues directly with the staff of the agencies.
The Government's response to the Committee's annual report welcomes the Committee's involvement in many of the areas covered. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I fully endorse its confirmation of the importance of continuing high-quality intelligence and security services for our country. Both to those involved and to the formulation of Government policy, reliable and timely intelligence will remain as important now as it has ever been.
The Government are taking an important step to update and improve the framework that regulates the use by the intelligence and security agencies—and others—of certain intelligence-gathering and investigative techniques. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill proposes an appropriate framework for when the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, one that is consistent with that Act. It contains provisions regulating the use of investigatory powers including the interception of communications, intrusive surveillance, directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. The Bill clearly sets out who can use each technique and for what purpose, levels of authorisation required, oversight of the use of the


techniques, and a complaints procedure. Members of the judiciary will act as commissioners overseeing the use of the powers, and a new tribunal will be established to provide a single point of contact for those who want to complain about the use of the powers. The nature of the agencies' accountability to Parliament has long been a matter of debate in this House. There is no need for me to explore that matter further.
Let me now go on to discuss some wider issues relating to the agencies' work.

Mr. Mates: The right hon. Gentleman says that the security services felt uncomfortable about the criticism expressed in the Mitrokhin report; no doubt that is true, but does he not agree that the report should be seen in context? Even though we are only extremely rarely able to report the agencies' successes, we know about them. Although in the Mitrokhin report we criticised the things that went wrong, the members of the Committee are well aware that things go right on many occasions, but that, because of the nature of the work, the outside world cannot be told.

Mr. Straw: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those words, which carry the greater authority coming as they do from a member of the Committee. Those of us who work directly with the agencies day to day would agree strongly with him. It is true of any organisation that its mistakes are more often noticed than its successes celebrated, but it is all the more true of the agencies because of the secret environment in which they operate.
The unpredictability of the post-cold-war era has thrown up different challenges, such as the global concerns of terrorism, weapons proliferation and drugs. Keeping up with, and setting up a credible defence against, today's dynamically changing threats and targets is a tough challenge. The agencies have approached those new priorities with imagination and dedication.
The agencies have scored real successes. Their achievements include helping the law enforcement agencies target drug trades, frustrating the ambitions of those regimes that seek to acquire the technology for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons achievements and frustrating those with terrorist agendas, all of which have been significant and effective as well as crucial to saving lives.
The Security Service has demonstrated great flexibility in responding to existing threats to national security and adapting to new challenges. We must all be encouraged by developments in Northern Ireland, but the recent attack on Hammersmith bridge demonstrates that the threat from dissident republican elements intent on wrecking the peace process remains real. Countering that threat therefore continues to be a high priority for the service, which makes an essential contribution to frustrating the aims of such terrorist groups and other terrorist organisations that pose a threat to UK interests.
The Security Service is a key player in countering the threat to the critical national infrastructure posed by malicious electronic attack. The National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre was established in December 1999 to provide a single point of access to the

Government's arrangements for encouraging improved defences against electronic attack. I am confident that the Security Service is an effective organisation and that accountability and oversight of the service's activities are adequate. During the three years that I have held my office, I have come to admire greatly the many staff of the service whom I have met, and the leadership of its director general, Stephen Lander, who was knighted in the birthday honours.
It is appropriate at this point to take the opportunity to inform hon. Members that the Prime Minister and I have agreed with the Director General of the Security Service that his term of appointment be extended to October 2002. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to receive the approbation of the House, and am sure that members of the ISC will commend this arrangement.
As the House knows, although I am responsible for the Security Service, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is directly responsible for the two other intelligence services, the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham. GCHQ has played an increasing, and increasingly effective, role in the war against organised crime, co-operating closely with the law enforcement agencies. It too has a prime role in safeguarding the critical national infrastructure that I mentioned earlier.
The SIS relies for its effectiveness on a world-leading reputation for secrecy and trust, as well as for great expertise and professionalism. That reputation is the service's most effective tool in convincing those who might help this country—sometimes at risk to their own lives, often at risk to their livelihoods and in dangerous situations—that their secrets and personal security are safeguarded. The SIS continues to make a special, and often vital, contribution to a range of international challenges faced by Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will, of course, speak at greater length about the work of the agencies for which he is responsible when he comes to wind up the debate.
I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to this important debate, and it is right that we have set aside parliamentary time for them to do so. I commend the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House, and look forward to continuing to work with it to ensure that we draw the right balance between scrutiny and secrecy, which is essential to maintain the effectiveness of these unique and crucial national assets.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I should like to add the agreement of the Opposition to the Home Secretary's tribute to the men and women who work in our intelligence and security services. As he rightly observed, the vast majority of them do so behind the scenes without public recognition. Their task is difficult and sometimes dangerous, yet, for reasons that we all appreciate, the full story is not told, and sometimes never can be. I also congratulate Stephen Lander on his honour, and on the extension of his contract.
The security services' work is of the utmost importance, and recent events have shown that we must remain vigilant. The murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders in Athens was a dreadful reminder that terrorist organisations continue to flourish, even in the member states of the European Union. The Hammersmith bridge


bomb and yesterday's explosion in Belfast pointed to a possible resurgence in terrorist activity connected to Northern Ireland.
As the Intelligence and Security Committee's latest annual report states, the threat to this country and its armed forces from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in the middle and far east, remains significant and is growing. The agencies also have important roles to play in the fight against drugs and organised crime, which, sadly, remain significant forces of evil in our society. That is the national and global context in which the services and their staff have to operate.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). We are indeed fortunate to have such an accomplished and experienced person as my right hon. Friend serving in that position. It is particularly encouraging that the Committee has won, and retained, the confidence of the services themselves. No doubt my right hon. Friend, when taking up his post, did not envisage the high media profile that the job has brought him in recent days, and I shall now turn to the reason for that media interest in the security and intelligence services.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to the Committee for the way in which it conducted the Mitrokhin inquiry, and I should also like to put on record the Opposition's heartfelt thanks to Vasili Mitrokhin, who undertook his work at tremendous risk. I wish to associate the Opposition with the Committee's conclusion that Mr. Mitrokhin
is a man of remarkable commitment and courage, who risked imprisonment or death in his determination that the truth should be told.
It is to the credit of the Secret Intelligence Service that it realised the value of the material that Mr. Mitrokhin was offering, and brought him and his family to this country. However, the way in which his valuable intelligence material was subsequently handled by this country's security and intelligence services gives cause for concern. It is said that the US President may have known about that British intelligence coup before the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
There are lessons to be learned from the Mitrokhin inquiry report, and I personally find it regrettable that confessed traitors such as Melita Norwood will never be prosecuted for betraying their country. There were undoubtedly serious failings in the system, and we can all hope that those will not recur.
In a November 1998 debate, the Home Secretary refuted the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that it was unusual for Whitehall Departments to work closely together. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Pinochet case in that respect, but his comments are borne out equally well, if not more so, by the Mitrokhin case, despite the Home Secretary's denial.
One of the most unfortunate aspects was that we had to learn about the whole affair through leaks to the media, and there are still a number of unanswered questions. Will the Home Secretary now—I shall give way to him when I have finished this point, as I do not think that he has answered it fully on previous occasions—tell the House why, despite the fact that he knew in December 1998 that

details of the Norwood case would be published, he failed to make a statement to the House until those details had already been made public?
When I put that question to the Home Secretary on 26 October 1999, he argued that he could not have made a statement because he was waiting for the Attorney-General's decision on whether to prosecute Mrs. Norwood. He said that he was asked
why I did not inform Parliament when I was first told of plans to publish the Mitrokhin archive. As I said, I was told that in December 1998.
He went on to say:
before the Attorney-General and the prosecutors could decide, she—
that means me
was inviting me to announce that consideration of prosecution was in train. That … would have been wholly improper.—[Official Report, 26 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 830–31.]
However, the Attorney-General's decision, in so far as it was a decision, was made on 22 March 1999, so for six months we heard nothing whatever from the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman—and, for that matter, the Foreign Secretary—must have known that the matter would shortly come into the public domain via the media, but publication was allowed to take place before a statement was made to the House. Indeed, the information was drip-fed to us by the press—as I put it at the time, we were practically having a spy a day—when the House could have been informed much earlier.
Does the Home Secretary think that the House and the country had a right to know about those matters from the Government before details of the Mitrokhin archive and the Melita Norwood case appeared in the newspapers? I ask that question not to make a partisan point, but to try to clarify the Home Secretary's view on the important issue of the procedure in such cases.
It is amazing that the Prime Minister, who, after all, has overall responsibility for those matters, was not even told about the Melita Norwood case until the day before the story broke in The Times last September. Whatever the Home Secretary may say, there appears to have been a complete lack of co-ordination. Why was the Foreign Secretary informed of the publication project in October 1997, the Prime Minister in December 1997, but the Home Secretary not until December 1998? Was there any co-ordination between their offices—or, indeed, between them personally?
It appears from paragraphs 22 and 56 of the Committee's report that the relevant chapters of the book were not cleared by the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General, so why did the Foreign Secretary approve the book for publication on 21 April last year? In doing so, did he seek the views of the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General, or was he misinformed that the passages had, in fact, been cleared? It is also a matter of concern that the publication criteria set down in 1996 by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary, were not followed. That was one of a number of significant failures in the Departments of State themselves.
I find it hard to believe, as paragraphs 59 and 60 of the report state, that when it was realised last summer that the details would come out in the press, the
media lines to take were being developed by the working group with support from the FCO and the Home Office. The Home Secretary saw the press lines in the week prior to the … story appearing in the Times. The Foreign Secretary did not see them.
Once the story broke Ministers were unable to use the prepared press lines because they were inadequate.
That simply beggars belief. It is clear from the Committee's report, which is excellent and does it credit, that there were many serious failures—but we need not go further over the details.
It is doubly unfortunate that the failures involved sensitive, indeed unique, material such as that provided by Mr. Mitrokhin. Those failures have distracted attention from Mr. Mitrokhin's actions, which, as I have said, deserve the highest praise. In the light of the Committee's report, the Government have decided to put in place measures to try to rectify the deficiencies, and I can only hope that the situation that has been described to us will never recur. It did no one any credit.

Mr. Straw: I shall try to be as gentle with the right hon. Lady as I can, but the simple truth is that as soon as the matter broke, she reached conclusions about it. She says that they are correct, but they are not supported in any particular by the conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee. She concluded that there had been a major lapse by current serving Ministers. There had been lapses, but not by Ministers. If there had been lapses by Ministers, I would hope and expect that members of the Committee would have said so, and said so publicly. They did not.
It is a matter of record, and is stated in paragraph 64 of the report, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was told on 22 March 1999 that the
Security Service are clearing the detail contained in those chapters … with the Home Secretary (who was briefed on the project in 1998, and is supportive) and the Attorney General.
That is what my right hon. Friend was told, and he had every reason to believe that it was correct. As it turns out, it was incorrect. That has been brought to the attention of the House and the Committee. Of course it has been accepted that there were failures. The Government have accepted in our response that there were failures in the Home Office, in other Departments and in the Security Service, but there was no failure, as the right hon. Lady implied that there was, by Ministers.
If there is a next time—we always learn from experience, but we cannot avoid such things—I suggest that the right hon. Lady does not make such intemperate statements as the one she published on 13 September, in which she stated that I must publish the legal advice that I claim makes a prosecution impossible and explain why I kept it secret from Parliament and the public for more than eight months.
If the right hon. Lady is suggesting that, as a matter of Opposition policy, she is now committed to publishing the legal advice available from the Law Officers in every case, or in any, she had better say so now, because a

fundamental aspect of the work of the Law Officers is that their advice to Ministers is never published. Government could scarcely operate if it were.

Miss Widdecombe: That is a fascinating defence to accusations that I have not even made. I quoted direct from the Intelligence and Security Committee report. I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that, but I shall not weary the House by quoting it again. He will find that I quoted specific paragraphs about the utter failure of co-ordination between Departments. If he takes that personally, perhaps there are reasons. I do not know about that, but I do know that every criticism that I have just made has been made in a report praised by both sides of the House as an extremely thorough piece of work.
The right hon. Gentleman may also recall that the final announcement of the decision not to prosecute Melita Norwood was not made to the House, but leaked to the media half an hour before the answer was laid, for which an apology had to be made. Not for a moment can he try to pretend that the handling of this issue—by politicians, by officials or by the various services concerned—has been all that it might have been. Very generously, I noted that the Government have agreed to put in place measures to try to rectify the deficiencies, and hoped that those measures would be effective.
On another aspect of the work of the security services, there is widespread concern at the intention of the former director general, Dame Stella Rimington, to publish her memoirs. It is vital that the men and women who work for our security and intelligence services can feel utterly secure in the knowledge that they and their work will never be compromised by the publication of such books. I hope that the Government will take those concerns into consideration. In his winding-up speech, will the Foreign Secretary tell us more about the Government's intentions, and, perhaps, what stages have been reached in the clearance process?
We were all shocked, and, I believe, deeply disgusted, bearing in mind the origin of the tragedy, by the death of the 58 illegal immigrants in Dover on Monday. Both sides of the House condemn the organised criminal racketeers who feed off human misery and suffering. The introduction to the Committee's report covering 1998–99, which we are debating, stated that there had been "no improvement" in the fight against the traffic in illegal immigrants, and added:
Rather the reverse has occurred …
In the light of recent events, that is certainly an issue to which the Government should turn their attention. I welcome the Home Secretary's indication on Monday that they will give the matter attention. It is crucial that the House is kept informed and that the issue is not neglected.
Another issue raised in the annual report, and one that the Government did not fully address in their response, was resources. The head of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Director General of the Security Service both voiced their concerns about the 2001–02 financial year, saying that the position would be challenging, and flagging up the possibility of being unable to maintain current service levels and meet new challenges.
The Committee observed:
We believe that these concerns should be fully addressed as a matter of some urgency.


That must be especially true, given the Foreign Secretary's remark about the security services during the debate in 1998:
If they are to do their job, they must have confidence that they will be resourced to fulfil the tasks that we place on them.—[Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 583.]
The Committee was also concerned about the level of resources being focused, along with Customs and Excise, on the fight against drugs. It observed:
We are not convinced that enough effort is being focused at stopping the drugs reaching the UK.
All those matters are particularly worrying. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can tell us what progress is being made in the areas that I have identified.
I cannot resist observing that I hope that the Government are taking seriously the problem of missing laptop computers, which has come to light in recent months. We have heard of instances of laptops belonging to members of the security and intelligence services going missing or being stolen in what can be described only as bizarre circumstances. We have had to listen to stories of tapas bars, taxis and train stations. I shall be grateful if the Government will clarify the truth of this when they respond, and tell us exactly how many laptops have been lost in recent months by members of the security and intelligence services, and, so far as they can tell us, in what circumstances.
Will the Government at least confirm that no classified or sensitive information has been lost as a result of the adventures with laptops? I hope that measures have been put in place across the services to prevent a recurrence of incidents that make the services look remarkably foolish.
Over the past year and a half, the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs have both produced reports that have made a valuable contribution to on-going debates. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will no doubt wish to refer to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the Sierra Leone affair in greater detail than I shall, but the cover-up climate that surrounds the issue means that questions will inevitably have to be asked, and it is only right that they should be.
For example, will the Foreign Secretary indicate, in more detail than hitherto, his reasons for refusing the Select Committee informal access to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service? How does that differ from the arrangements that the Home Secretary makes in respect of the security services, and why?
Will the Foreign Secretary also comment on the Committee's conclusion that his refusal to allow it access to the head of the SIS has inhibited its inquiry? Perhaps that is what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, had in mind. What does the Foreign Secretary have to say about the personal criticism of Foreign Office policy, as opposed to the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, that appears in paragraph 108 of the report?
That brings me to the issue of accountability, on which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has produced a report. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and the other members of the Intelligence and Security Committee do an excellent job. There is no greater testament to that than the thorough investigation into the Mitrokhin affair. In so far as one can draw such conclusions relatively early in its existence, the Committee is clearly doing its job supremely well.
The Government now see no reason to change the present arrangements. The Opposition agree with that view, as do the majority of the Committee. It is a unique Committee which scrutinises a unique and very sensitive area of the Executive. All sides of the debate agree that its establishment was a significant step forward.
The arrangements put in place by the previous Government are not yet even a decade old. I note the Home Secretary's comments in evidence to the Select Committee that the current arrangements should have time to bed down. When we are talking about institutions with histories much longer than that, I do not think that four or five years can possibly provide a proper evaluation of the new system.
The country's intelligence and security services do a vital job in safeguarding the nation during the increasingly uncertain and violent times in which we live. They, and men and women such as Vasili Mitrokhin, are all too often the unsung heros. Once again, I pay tribute to them, their good work and those who oversee them.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The House will know that I serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall refer briefly to two matters in the annual report that may be of some interest to Members and to the wider public, who, I hope, read our debates about the agencies.
First, there is the continuing interest that the Committee takes in international developments in intelligence oversight. Two members of the Committee, including me, went to a bi-annual inspector-generals conference in Canada in June 1999. Members of the Committee more senior than I had attended it previously. There were representatives from countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA. It was good that South Africa was represented, because the Minister responsible was present, and the Committee that oversaw his Department, along with representatives of the agencies. Some good debates on oversight took place.
In the introduction to the report are set out the inward delegations that have come to this country, including officials and parliamentarians involved in intelligence and oversight, They have come from countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, South Korea, Romania, Poland and the Ukraine.
Having emerged from communism, many of those countries are referred to by the west as developing democracies. I hope that we influence them in talking about the way in which we in this country approach our work in overseeing agencies. They explain to us in great detail the roles that they play in that respect, and some of them have real reservations about the way in which their agencies operated in different guises many years ago. It is a fascinating debate in which to be involved. They see their agencies as operating more along the lines within which our agencies have operated over many years.
The second issue arising from the annual report is serious crime. The Committee was told about the growing importance of smuggling cigarettes into the United Kingdom. Customs and Excise estimates that about £1,500 million is lost to the Exchequer every year as a result of duty and tax avoidance. Some lorry containers can bring in smuggled cigarettes to the value of £1 million. We were told that the scale of the profits that


can be made from cigarette smuggling is comparable with the profits made from drug smuggling, and that criminals are turning to cigarette smuggling because the risks and penalties are lower than those that apply with drugs. We have emphasised the fact that we believe that any additional resources given to the agencies to allow them to work in this area could effectively be self-funding for the Exchequer through the recovery of duty and tax.
The Government's response was that they agreed about the loss of revenue to the Exchequer through smuggling, and that they would continue to keep under consideration the resources needed to combat it. Since the report was published, millions of extra pounds have gone into Customs and Excise to try to stop serious crime, including smuggling and the avoidance of duty.
We have not emphasised penalties. If I were found with half a million pounds worth of class A drugs in the back of a lorry, I would face a penalty of up to life imprisonment. However, if I was found with half a million pounds worth of smuggled cigarettes, the penalty would be much less. It is no wonder that people are moving into smuggling cigarettes and not dealing in class A drugs. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could give us his views on that, or write to me. I understand why we did not highlight that part of the report, but we should consider the issue of penalties.
The major report that we are debating relates to the Mitrokhin inquiry. We concluded that there was serious failure on the part of the Security Service in that it did not consult the Law Officers about the case of Mrs. Norwood. We also noted that the action prevented her possible prosecution. Some of the headlines that followed the publication of the report seemed ridiculous, implying that we had suggested that she should have been prosecuted. The simple fact is that it was not up to us, just as we did not think that it was up to the Security Service, to take that decision. The report makes that clear.
The other issue relating to Melita Norwood was that she had slipped out of sight. We believe that was a further serious failure on the part of the Security Service over a number of years. We were advised that the systems covering prosecution referrals to the Law Officers and the monitoring of espionage cases within the Security Service have been changed to prevent similar serious failings occurring again. I emphasise that, because it took place during our inquiry. It was recognised that things had gone a little wrong, and procedures inside the agencies were changed.
We agreed that the establishment of an interdepartmental working group to oversee the publication of the Mitrokhin archive was a sound decision. However, we concluded that officials failed to keep Ministers fully informed and to ensure that the decisions of the working group were carried out. As a consequence of those failures, Ministers made decisions on the basis of incorrect information.
We also noted that the working group was not adequately constituted to develop the necessary media strategy and to ensure that Ministers were alerted in a timely manner and provided with appropriate and robust lines to take. We stated in our conclusions that
misleading stories were allowed to receive wide circulation by a failure to anticipate the likely media focus and to have prepared and promulgated appropriate responses.

In the Government's response, they accepted that the preparations for the handling of the publicity surrounding the archive were ineffective, and officials recognised that there would be considerable public interest, and that the Government's normal and entirely proper refusal to comment on intelligence-related matters would not be adequate. The implications of non-prosecution of Mrs. Norwood were not sufficiently worked through. In consequence there was inadequate preparation of responses to the reaction and the interest aroused in the media and in Parliament.
I see quite clearly how the situation came about, but given that the Government acknowledge that officials recognised that there would be considerable public interest, and that Government's normal and entirely proper refusal to comment on intelligence-related matters would not be adequate, it is no longer normal or entirely proper to use the stock phrase that has been used for decades in this country—that the Government do not comment on matters of national security.
A debate must take place about the way in which Ministers and officials should speak to the media in such circumstances. Different terms are needed to replace the stock phrase that has been circulating in and around the agencies for many years. I do not claim to have the answer, but there seems to be a slight contradiction in the Government's conclusion about how they should operate at the public interface in future.
The Committee recommended that greater consideration was needed when briefing Ministers and senior officials on sensitive material, to ensure that accurate briefing is given on all the information.
Our greatest concern was that the mishandling of the publication of the Mitrokhin archive detracted from the major achievement of the SIS in exfiltrating Mr. Mitrokhin, his family and the material, together with the successful dissemination of the material to foreign liaison services. The information that we received sped around the world to foreign agencies, which most of us would argue was to the general good of counterintelligence. It is a great pity that the handling of the publication of the archive detracted from that.
I put on record the bravery of Mr. Mitrokhin, who believed that the organisation for which he was working in his own country was betraying the people of his country.
Mistakes were made, and they were admitted. There was no hint at any time in our proceedings that anyone was trying to mislead us in any way. It is important to recognise that nothing happened to compromise national security, no one was put at risk, and there was no deliberate attempt to deceive Ministers or anyone else. No one tried to shirk responsibility.
If, after reading the report, one asks why a certain thing happened in such an organisation, the answer is that it was probably a result of the culture of the organisation. We all recognise the distinctive culture of Parliament or the culture of ministerial office.
It is to the credit of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary that they asked our Committee—a Committee of parliamentarians who were either elected or, in one case, appointed to the other place—to look into all the details of the case and to report in such an open way. Little was taken out of the report made available to the public. We, and the public, should be grateful for that.
I hope that the confidence-building measures in which we, as the oversight Committee, are engaged with the agencies and with Government organisations, will continue in the future.

Mr. Tom King: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a valuable and respected member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I start by expressing my appreciation to the Home Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for their kind personal comments. I welcome the debate on behalf of the Committee. This is the most important parliamentary occasion of the year for the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we appreciate the fact that it involves the presence of two of the most senior Cabinet Ministers. That is a proper recognition of the importance of the agencies for which they are directly and personally responsible.
It may be a little churlish to make an early criticism. I welcome the debate, and my goodness, we waited for it. The delay in holding the debate is quite unacceptable. The debate after our last annual report took place on 2 November 1998. We hope to produce our next annual report in six weeks.
The present debate is on the 1998–99 report, which was sent to the Government with a letter from me to the Prime Minister dated 6 August last year. The Government took six months to respond. Their response is dated 28 January this year, and now, on 22 June, five months later, we have the chance of a debate. I ask the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, both of whom I am pleased to see in their place, to use their influence to ensure that the next debate is more timely.
As I said, we will submit our next annual report at the end of the summer Session. There should be a real determination for the Government response to be available by the time the House comes back in October, and that we should have the debate when the report is fresh and current. The debate on a previous report was held on 2 November, as I mentioned. I need to put that on the record. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will understand why I am doing so, and the Whip on duty may report this to the business managers as well. It is unacceptable that there should be such a time lag.
If I had to choose a text to represent the year's work, it might be a quotation from the leader in The Times after the publication of our report on Mitrokhin. The Times was kind enough to refer to it as
a strikingly successful example of public accountability.
We appreciate that comment.
Against that background, I pay my tribute to the members of the Committee, several of whom are in the Chamber, and to our staff, who support us so well. By the nature of their work, they will not be recognised by name, but their contribution will be recorded elsewhere—perhaps Upstairs, or in the future. We appreciate their work.
Let me comment on Select Committees and the alternative of a different style of Committee. I pay tribute to my colleagues' attendance at meetings of the

Intelligence and Security Committee. I read the paper by the Liaison Committee that discusses new arrangements for improvements in Select Committees. It considers punitive measures that perhaps should be available for the Chairman to take against members who signally fail to turn up for Select Committee meetings and are regular absentees. I am glad to say that that has never been a problem for me in the six years that I have been Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That should be recognised.
I am speaking personally, although I will probably take the overwhelming majority of the Committee with me on the comments that I am about to make. "Overwhelming" may be an exaggeration; perhaps "significant" would be better. I am unimpressed by the suggestion that there is an urgent need for a change. The Times quotation suggests that we are doing something right, and breaking new ground in a way that was perhaps not apparent to the Liaison Committee or the Select Committee on Home Affairs when they prepared their reports.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is a parliamentary Committee; Parliament established us to do our job. There are differences between our Committee and Select Committees. On a previous occasion, the Home Secretary famously destroyed the illusion that because Parliament votes on the membership of Select Committees, they are the product of the free vote of an independent House of Parliament. The selection of some and the exclusion of others who might be less acceptable show that the forces that are at work are pretty close to Government.
It is acknowledged that the Intelligence and Security Committee is slightly different. The Home Affairs Committee's report recognises that we require special arrangements and that we could not be an ordinary Select Committee. If one visits the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and walks down the secure corridor towards the armed guards standing by the door, one realises that it is not an ordinary, free-standing Select Committee. We meet in secret and have secure premises, which are required for our work.
The report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs also recognises that the agencies, for which we have oversight and responsibility, answer to different Ministers and Departments. If one sought to replace the Committee, it would have to be with a single Select Committee. That is common ground between those who advocate a Select Committee. The report had integrity in that it acknowledged that the Intelligence and Security Committee was doing quite a good job. It also recognised that the Committee was evolving, developing and appointing an investigator.
That report was written before we broke new ground with the invitation from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to investigate the Mitrokhin affair, with full access to all relevant papers and advice to Ministers. The latter was important, and enabled my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald to ask some difficult questions because we had all the information whereby we were able to reconstruct the paper trail and some of the problems that had arisen.
The calibre of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee is as good as that of the members of any other Select Committee. It comprises many senior hon. Members. Other Select Committees, such as the Home


Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee, tend to write reports as if we were from another planet. Yet some of my colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee serve on other Select Committees. I was disappointed that the Liaison Committee, whose Chairman I had approached, did not invite me even to attend a meeting as an observer or to comment to the Committee before it further investigated some of its proposals.
There is much common ground between us. The Liaison Committee report complained about delay in Government responses and suggested that two months should be the norm. I agree; I have just complained about the delay of six months before we got our response. The report stresses the need for a debate on reports. I even found some common ground with its complaint about the inconsistency of Government replies. It stated that some were exemplary and others were superficial. I agree with that. Perhaps the Government will refer to it in their response to the debate.
I have been proud to chair the Intelligence and Security Committee since its inauguration and during its development and evolution, which continues. We need Government support and a proper understanding by them that the Committee is an important bulwark and safeguard for the intelligence agencies and public confidence in them. The fullest trust, confidence and openness by Government is necessary when appropriate to enable us to discharge our duties.
If the Liaison Committee wants to return to the matter—its report said that it might—a little consultation with parliamentary colleagues who serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee might be helpful. We might then be to help the Liaison Committee. I want to put that on record because I do not imagine that the Government have many empty slots in their legislative programme, and I do not therefore believe that the matter will be pursued with any urgency. That could not be justified.
I add the Committee's strong endorsement to the tribute of the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald to those who work in our intelligence agencies. The nature of their work means that it is impossible for people to know the challenges and dangers that they face and the very personal risks that they sometimes run. It is not known that sometimes they have to be moved very quickly, and arrangements have to be made to move them and their families because of imminent threats, perhaps after their identity has been betrayed by others. Those people are dedicated to the security and protection of our country and we owe them a great debt.
I want to put on record my admiration of the leadership that those people receive. I do not exclude from that Sir Richard Wilson, the Secretary of the Cabinet, whose interest in our Committee's work I appreciate. He has attached importance to our work. I also thank the Cabinet Office for its support. I add my personal recognition of Sir Stephen Lander, the Director General of the Security Service, whom I congratulate on his award.
Our appreciation of our relationship with the agencies, and their quality is part of the background against which we work. We require the fullest possible Government

co-operation whenever we have to be involved and in whatever work we may have to undertake. We are grateful for the Prime Minister's endorsement and his assurance of that full co-operation in our work.
Our job is to scrutinise, to recognise and respect work that is well done, but not to develop the sort of cosy relationship in which we become apologists for the intelligence and security agencies. The best service that we can do them is at all times to be alert to mistakes and occasions when standards are not maintained and integrity is not protected, and to speak out without fear or favour.
Some hon. Members referred to my public profile. We began with almost total invisibility. The profile has grown, however. It is an important part of our work that the public know that we exist, and can have some confidence that a Committee independent of Government oversees the agencies.
In a recent article about Menwith Hill, one of the criticisms made by a certain newspaper was that it was an incredibly secret place, which no Minister or other Member of Parliament had ever visited. Let me put it on record that the Committee has made two visits, and that a number of our colleagues have made individual visits. Both the fact that such visits are made and the fact that it is known that there are not "secret places" that are off limits for the Committee are important, not just to satisfy us but in terms of the public confidence that they create.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will emphasise that it is he who speaks for the Committee. When journalists telephone its members, they should not be offended when we tell them—to put it bluntly—where to get off, because we simply do not talk. The Chairman talks on behalf of the Committee, and they should always approach the Chairman.

Mr. King: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
As was said earlier, the Committee seeks to maintain the seamlessness—the Government constantly strive to achieve a similarly seamless appearance—that enables it to speak with one voice. Difficult decisions, or judgments, must often be made on what can or cannot be said about certain issues. I am sure that the Home Secretary and others—such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who have held his post know that the problem is remembering what is public. I hope to take on that responsibility for the Committee when trying to make the necessary judgment, and I hope that we strike reasonable balances.
I have spoken of the contribution that the Committee can make. I am grateful for the support that the Government have given to the developments that we have achieved in the evolution of the system. We take considerable interest in the expenditure of the agencies. I am afraid that the number of asterisks that appear in our report representing the details of that expenditure must be pretty frustrating for the ordinary reader, but every asterisk represents information that we hold as a Committee. We have examined the expenditure involved, and have been able to identify it. For instance, one heading relating to the Secret Intelligence Service relates to the cost of running agents. That is the degree of detail that we examine.
We are grateful for the assistance of the National Audit Office, which was not originally envisaged in the legislation. It has already done valuable work, and I think


that its contribution will continue to grow. The investigator to whom the Home Secretary referred represents an addition to that valuable work. I pay tribute to another supporter of the Committee's work—the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who has been very helpful in certain circumstances.
The most recent and obvious evolution of our work is represented by what we did in regard to Mitrokhin. I do not want to add a great deal to what I have already said about our report in press announcements: the hon. Member for Rother Valley has said a fair amount about it, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald drew attention to certain matters of concern. However, I want to stress the importance of putting the issue in context.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) spoke of the need to recognise the successes of the agencies. This has been one of the few instances in which success has been manifest and public. The fact that there has been some confusion about publication, and the fact that there have been some failures in regard to prosecution and other matters, must not be allowed to detract from the overall understanding that this was a remarkable and outstanding intelligence success. I believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation claimed that it was the largest pool of counter-intelligence material that it had ever received, and the Central Intelligence Agency paid similar tribute to the help that it had been given in the identification of people who had been betraying national interests in the United States and many other countries.
The tributes paid to the SIS' s exfiltration of Mr. Mitrokhin, his family and his material, and the pursuit by the Security Service of a number of the leads that arose from it, mark important and praiseworthy achievements, but we must never forget Mr. Mitrokhin himself—an extraordinary man, whom the Committee had the privilege to meet and interview about his work, and about the remarkable archive that he produced. It has given us an unparalleled understanding of the nature of the KGB and its activities over the years. We believe that there is more material to be published, which will of course be of great interest to those concerned with the history of espionage and intelligence in other countries over recent years.
Nevertheless, the achievements of the Mitrokhin report should not blind us to the fact that mistakes were made in its handling. Lessons must be learned. Those are the principles that guided us. We appreciated the Government's early recognition that mistakes had been made once matters came to light, and we believe that the steps that were taken were appropriate to meet our initial criticisms.
There is one question that I am asked most often in interviews, and on more public occasions. There is a latent suspicion that we do not really need the agencies. Why do we spend nearly £1 billion on them? Did not this world of espionage pass with the end of the cold war?
In the foreword to our 1998–99 report, we referred to the various areas in which intelligence is critical. We referred, for instance, to the need for support for our military forces in actions overseas, and, in particular, to Kosovo. Since then we have seen the events in East Timor and, most recently, in Sierra Leone. We now consider the issues involved in weapons proliferation, and the increasing concern felt in Washington about national missile defence against the risk of missiles and weapons

of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states. The importance of the agencies' task in trying to counter some of those challenges is all too real.
Only yesterday, I read a comment in a defence journal about Kazakhstan, whose Defence Minister has admitted that the country has not the slightest idea how many weapons it has. In earlier days, Kazakhstan had a certain relevance to Soviet missile and nuclear activities. It is now trying to conduct an inventory. The report that I read alleged that 40 Mig 21s had been smuggled to North Korea from Kazakhstan. Admittedly it is an elderly aeroplane, but it is not one that we would wish to become part of the currency of arms smuggling.
To those who say that we now live in a safer world, let me say that the truth is that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and some of its controls, the availability of weapons and access to nuclear and other materials present a threatening and dangerous scenario, and it is vital to have the best possible intelligence to try to prevent proliferation.
So soon after the tragic assassination of Brigadier Saunders, there is no need for me to restate the reasons why international terrorism continues to pose a major threat. I understand that the French football team in the European cup is now having to have special security against a threatened international terrorist attack. It is a continuing threat. The Home Secretary reminded us of Hammersmith bridge and of our own domestic concerns. It is an area in which intelligence and security continue to be needed.
The Committee visited Dover a few months ago. I do not think a single member of the Committee was surprised by the tragic news that came from Dover, having seen the situation in that port and the pressures that exist. Our 1998–99 report emphasised the importance of enhancing intelligence capability against organised crime. We specifically mentioned immigrants as one of our areas of concern.
I touch on several other issues that are of concern to the Committee. I do not want to accuse the two senior Ministers here, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, of breach of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, but there is a publication called "National Intelligence Machinery." It describes the role of Ministers and makes it clear that the Prime Minister has overall responsibility. It then draws attention to the Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services. It looks pretty good on paper. I do not think that it looks very good in practice. It might be a good idea if that committee met and had some actual physical presence. It would be a nice gesture, if no more, to the intelligence agencies.
It is not a party political point because the ministerial committee was not known for the frequency of its meetings during the term of office of the previous Government, either. It may interest members of the previous Government to know that the ministerial committee even existed, but it did.
If we are to have ministerial accountability, if it does make sense to have divided responsibility for the intelligence and security agencies, and if the structure is to be such that there is separate accountability, the argument for the ministerial committee meeting must be strong. It could be a valuable exercise. If it met, not necessarily frequently, but at least annually, that would be a significant improvement.
The Committee takes considerable interest in personnel practices in the agencies and in recruitment and retention. I must add one sharp criticism and one complaint about the Government response. Two reports ago, we made a proposal in response to a problem, which is well known, involving Mr. Tomlinson. He complained that he was dismissed from the Secret Intelligence Service and was denied any redress or access to an employment tribunal on the ground that it was impossible to hear the evidence which was said to be too secret to be available to an employment tribunal.
We came up with a fairly simple proposal: it should be possible to set up a special tribunal identical to the normal employment tribunal, but constructed in such a way that it could handle secret matters. The Government accepted that proposal. We have said some rude things in our report—I shall not rehearse them—about the shambles of the parliamentary handling of that. The Home Secretary need not look embarrassed because, as ever, another Department handled the Bill concerned—the proposal was tacked on to the Employment Relations Bill as an amendment.
Having made the proposal, the Committee was never consulted when the amendment actually went in. It never even came through the Commons; it was done in the Lords and came back. However, we were assured that we would be consulted on the regulations. What is pretty outrageous is the Government response:
The Government is therefore disappointed at the reaction of the Committee to this prompt improvement in the rights of members of staff of the agencies.
That was written in January. There was supposed to have been a prompt improvement. It has not actually occurred yet. Regulations have not been introduced yet and there has been no consultation of the Committee. It is a proposal that we made two years ago, so I ask that it be dealt with promptly. The Government said that it was a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, they have not yet done it.
I have referred to areas of expenditure and the assistance of the NAO. We are seeking to give greater information about the cost of the individual agencies; we referred to that in our report. The Government were looking forward to a meeting with us to discuss those matters further. That meeting has now been held. I think that it was helpful. I hope that we will be able to make progress on that matter and that next year's report will be rather fuller in that respect than this year's. We await Ministers' response on that point.
The area of expenditure that we addressed that was of particular concern to us—we got agreement to the publication of NAO reports on the matter—was the cost of the new premises for the SIS and the Security Service, and the substantial over-runs in expenditure that were incurred on both occasions. Although they were past events, we quoted them because we recognised that the complexity and scale of the new accommodation project for GCHQ was far greater than either of those undertakings.
We gave the clearest warnings of our concern, in view of past experience, that the problems should not be repeated and that there would be the closest watch. We were grateful that the response in January says:
During its planned move to new accommodation GCHQ is paying considerable attention to ensuring that degradation of its operating capability is kept to a minimum and that all essential services are maintained.

Later, in paragraph 17, the Government noted
the Committee's endorsement of three guiding principles in the management of the GCHQ New Accommodation Project. GCHQ has sought to ensure that the maximum likely costs have been identified.
They added that GCHQ would
continue to supplement its own project management experience and expertise by the use of contractors and expert advisers. GCHQ—
this was written in January—
understands the need to control costs at all stages … Limits on spending will be set before work commences, and any need for subsequent adjustment will be carefully scrutinised.
The Committee is under no illusions about the challenge that is represented by the new GCHQ accommodation project and its importance. The Committee supports the project going forward, but it would be failing in its duty if it did not put on record its continuing great concern about the matter, of which the Foreign Secretary is aware. I shall not go further into the matter now, but we have continually sought to raise the matter and remain anxious as to whether its seriousness is yet fully recognised.
The two issues that our report says will lead to further work are files, on which we hope to have more to say in our next report—I shall not go into it in detail—and security procedures, which has been a constant theme of every report that the Committee has written. We are concerned about whether the agencies insist on constant vigilance on internal security. The recent events involving laptops are merely an illustration of the problem that we have been continually trying to draw to the attention of Ministers and heads of agencies. We have not had the worst experiences; other countries have suffered worse lapses of security recently. We can maintain that position only by constant attention to this tiresome, time-consuming but critically important role.
Finally, we attach great importance to security and secrecy. The Intelligence and Security Committee seeks to establish the highest standard in its own conduct in that respect. Against that background, let me express a personal view. Obviously, we have concerns about the actions of a former head of the Security Service. It is one thing to publish a book about one's early childhood experiences or happy holidays, but it is quite another to write a book that covers in any detail work or responsibility in this area. It is peculiarly critical in respect of somebody who has been the leader of an agency as it raises concern that other members of the agency might be tempted or attracted by financial reward to do the same. There is a heavy responsibility on a former director-general.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also have the unfortunate precedent of General de la Billiere's memoirs, which described what the SAS did during the Gulf war? It opened the door to a large number of other books by former members of the SAS.

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend, who was then Minister for the Armed Forces, will remember that well, and I do too. I entirely share his reservations on that point.
A letter to The Times by a former Member of Parliament completely distorted the position with regard to the book by Sir Percy Sillitoe, a former Director-General of the Security Service. The right


hon. C. R. Attlee PC, OM, CH, MP, who wrote the foreword to it, specifically said that it was unfortunate that, in the interests of secrecy, Sir Percy had had to leave out the most interesting parts of the book, which would have been of interest to the reader. The letter to The Times gave the impression that he had been allowed to put it all in, when the opposite was the case.
It would be wrong to talk about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee or the agencies without recognising the importance of our allies in intelligence and security. We have the privilege to meet many of those who work with our agencies and with the oversight committees and we are familiar with those in Washington and other capitals who are part of the intelligence alliance and the parliamentarians in those countries who oversee them. We pay tribute to them, the work that they do and the relationship that we have with them.
In our report for 1998–99 we said:
Our safety depends on good intelligence and security, and it is vital that these agencies are properly maintained and funded in a sustainable way. That is the responsibility of Ministers and those in charge of the Agencies. It is our responsibility as a committee to hold them to account.
Our report describe how we have sought to discharge that task and I commend it to the House.

Ms Rosie Winterton: As the newest and most junior member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, having been appointed in January, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the most senior member of the Committee, whose style of leadership—and, after all, he does have style—has helped it develop in a way that would not have been thought of at its inception. The right hon. Gentleman has managed to win the trust and respect of those in the agencies and of Ministers, and we should pay tribute to him for that.
I also thank my fellow Committee members on both sides of the House for their help and advice, and the staff who serve the Committee for all their hard work.
I confess that when I joined the Committee I was somewhat sceptical about the work of the intelligence and security agencies, which is a not uncommon reaction given that the agencies have traditionally been shrouded in secrecy. Until recently, it would have been unthinkable to have had this debate, given that until a few years ago the existence of the intelligence and security agencies was not even acknowledged.
As I have learned more about the work of the agencies and have come into contact with many of the people who work for them, I have come to recognise the role that they play in protecting our democracy and the dedicated and professional work that is carried out, often in extremely dangerous situations.
I know from my reaction to learning more about the work of the agencies how important increasing one's knowledge can be in increasing one's confidence in the agencies. Most people in the United Kingdom understand the need for the intelligence and security agencies to operate within a ring of secrecy, but they also want to know that Parliament is making sure that the agencies are not operating outside the law or in any way that

undermines our democracy. People need that reassurance, not least because of suspicions that have developed about the activity of the agencies whether as a result of fiction, film, controversy around issues such as files, as referred to earlier, or of allegations by disaffected or former members of the agencies.
Of course, Ministers are responsible for the agencies, but as has been enshrined by the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 1994, it is now recognised that it is right for elected representatives to be involved in overseeing the work of the agencies. I believe that it is entirely proper to keep questioning the effectiveness of the oversight system that is being set up. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, in the light of experience we need to keep looking at whether the oversight that we have is adequate, and to be openminded about that.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased that she has joined the Committee. Obviously, it goes without saying that there is an absolute need for all democracies—and certainly our own—to have security services to protect our freedom and our civil liberties. Does my hon. Friend agree that, had there been parliamentary oversight at the time, it is quite likely that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce would never have been targeted in the first place? The lack of oversight probably played a role in the dirty tricks campaign against Harold Wilson in the 1960s. It is all somewhat alarming and hopefully will end as a result of the introduction of parliamentary scrutiny.

Ms Winterton: Past suspicions about the agencies' activities led to the establishment of the Committee, to develop an oversight system that works. We must question whether oversight needs to go further, to ensure that such activities never happen again.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the hon. Lady accept that whether or not a file is kept on a Member of Parliament is an operational matter that does not come under the existing Committee's remit and probably would not in future?

Ms Winterton: I will address later the question of how much members of the Committee are told.
Openness and transparency within the constraints of national security are key to building confidence. The Committee should be looking at improving public faith in the system. That is doubly important as the agencies move into areas such as serious crime; drug trafficking; and smuggling—whether of alcohol, cigarettes or people. As the intelligence services work increasingly alongside law enforcement agencies such as the police and HM Customs and Excise and the contrast between them becomes clear, there will need to be even greater emphasis on the services' accountability.
Whether or not the Committee should become a Select Committee is discussed among its members. I believe that as demand for greater openness, transparency and accountability grows there will come a time when the public and Parliament will demand Select Committee status, albeit with the constraints already described. Whatever form the Committee takes, the key question is how much access its members have to information.
Members of comparable committees in other countries—notably the United States—do a different job, so are given more information. The American people have gained more confidence in the oversight of senate and congressional committees not just because those committees are responsible for allocating money to the intelligence agencies but because they know that their members are kept fully informed. They have more information about operational matters—that may cover some aspects mentioned by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton).
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Mitrokhin inquiry—my first encounter with the intelligence and security agencies—was an enormous step forward in proving that it was possible to give ISC members access to all the relevant information without compromising national security. I hope that experience will lead to greater trust between the Committee, agencies and Ministers.
This debate is an important part of building public confidence in the scrutiny process. I was not a member of the Committee when the report that is before the House today was delivered to the Government 10 months ago. It is a matter for concern that it has taken so long for the report to be published and for it and the Government's response to be debated. The last report was debated 19 months ago and the Committee is now on the verge of completing this year's report. Parliament might feel that the Committee is not reporting back in a timely fashion. It is important that our debates be relevant to topical issues, so I hope that it will be possible for the House to debate future reports more quickly.
The terms of reference of the ministerial committee to which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater referred are to keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services. That provides for some oversight but it may be tricky to achieve that if that committee does not meet often.
Other important reasons for oversight are efficiency and ensuring value for money. The Committee expressed concern about overspending, particularly on the agencies' accommodation. Parliament wants to be reassured that the agencies are using public money wisely. The work of the National Audit Office has been extremely valuable to the Committee.
Duplication should be avoided, however. Paragraph 37 of the annual report notes the appointment of an adviser to improve efficiency within the single intelligence vote and to review joint working and co-operation. As the agencies enter more into tackling organised crime, and in the light of technological developments, the need to avoid duplicating work and to ensure that it is undertaken efficiently will become even more important.
The Committee, with its overview of all three agencies, is in an ideal position to monitor this. The Committee requested access to the efficiency adviser's reports and I am pleased that the Committee has received the first of them, even though it was submitted to Ministers more than a year ago. I hope that future reports will be available more quickly.
Although I have some concerns, I firmly believe that over the years the Committee has been successful in pushing back the frontiers of security and oversight. That

could not have happened without the co-operation of the agencies and Ministers. I hope that Parliament will recognise that achievement and will be assured that members of the Committee are always looking to see what more can be done to encourage transparency and openness from our intelligence and security services, without undermining the extremely important work that they do for our country.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who has been a refreshing addition to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I have only one worry—it is a matter of record that every woman who has ever been appointed to our Committee has been made a Minister shortly afterwards. I do not wish to dampen the hon. Lady's promotion prospects, but it would be helpful if we could make use of her experience for slightly longer.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would wish me to place on the record their welcome for the work of the Committee, expressed in the reports. The reports are important, but the fact that a representative group of Members of Parliament is inside the ring of secrecy, watching and asking questions and maintaining accountability, is at least as important—and, I would suggest, much more important. We have been pressing for the Committee for 20 years and are delighted that it has been set up. As a party, we would prefer a Select Committee, but it would operate very differently from other Select Committees, and Select Committee status would not add to the Committee's ability to do its job. For that, we need to continue improving access to relevant and necessary information, which is a higher priority than changing the Committee's status.
I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee. It is a hard-working Committee and, as the Chairman pointed out, the attendance record is excellent. Ill-health is almost the only reason for any protracted absence from the Committee and we never have a problem with the Committee's quorum, as other Select Committees do. I also wish to pay to tribute to the staff, including the investigator recently added to the staff, and to those in the leadership of the agencies, who recognise the value and importance of the Committee's work.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I also wish to stress the importance and value of intelligence and the organisations that provide it. Their staff show remarkable skills, dedication and, in some cases, courage in very dangerous situations. Intelligence saves lives; it can prevent or help to end conflict; it affords protection to our forces on active service; it helps to track down organisers of large-scale crime; and it is a shield against threats to our financial system, our communications and information technology, and to democracy itself.
Intelligence gathering can also compromise civil liberties, and it therefore must be controlled by a strong legal framework. It is worth putting on record the fact that, whatever controversy surrounds some of its provisions on information technology, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will significantly strengthen the legal framework and restraint under which intelligence gathering takes place. That is why, in general terms, we have supported that legislation and wish to see the greater part of it on the statute book.
As well as a legal framework, monitoring and accountability—such as the Committee can provide—is important to the civil liberties safeguards alongside which intelligence and security services must operate. Ministers like intelligence. In my experience, a gleam comes into their eyes as they tell one how valuable a particular piece of intelligence has been. Therefore, there is always a risk that their appetite for intelligence will lead them to underestimate the political risks and the civil liberties downside to an action that they authorised. That is all the more reason why the Committee must exist to provide oversight. For that reason, it needs to be more fully informed than it has sometimes been about what is being done or is contemplated. The Committee is precluded from, and would not normally envisage, examining operational matters, but a decision to embark on an operation or kind of operation may have such important implications that the Committee should be kept informed and should be able to inform the judgment that Ministers make.
Sometimes agencies—I have in mind examples from around the world—have acted without authority, but the greater danger is usually that actions are covertly authorised by Ministers and Governments, safe in the knowledge that they can be disavowed. Many actions, for example, for which the CIA was criticised in earlier decades were not rogue actions by an uncontrolled agency, but covert actions authorised by US Presidents, who did not wish it to be known that they had authorised them. There may be a case for non-disclosure at the time, but such decisions should not be taken by an Executive free from an active monitoring process.
That point leads directly to an issue that arose in the Mitrokhin case. It will arise again in the Committee's work and I particularly wish to draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to it. The greatest difficulty the Committee has in obtaining information, and where intransigence is at its greatest, it arises not from the detail of agency work—when we have to ask about an operational matter that suddenly has wider implications—but from advice to Ministers. Nothing in the British system is more rigorously protected than advice to Ministers. It is sometimes protected more rigorously than operational details.
Without knowing what Ministers were told, and what they authorised, it is impossible for the Committee to give the House and the country the reassurance that they require. The Home Secretary recognised that when he asked us to look into the Mitrokhin case, and that is why the report is thorough and effective. It is only when one sees the original copy of the submission made to the Minister, with notes written on it in his own handwriting, that one can be sure what the Minister knew and what direction he sought to give to events. The Home Secretary's example should be followed in other cases where the central issue is who knew what, and when, and what they did about it.
There is such a blur surrounding the issue of what Ministers' private offices were told, and such uncertainty about whether Ministers were told everything that their private offices knew, that the Committee needs to see the documentation to give the House the reassurance—often readily available in the documents—that the Minister did not know, or did know and recommended appropriate action.
There is no question but that mistakes were made by the Security Service and the Home Office over the failure to consult properly in the Mitrokhin case about non-prosecution, and the handling and publication of the material. In the Melita Norwood case, it is difficult to stomach the idea that someone who sought, from the comfort of Britain, to help the most repressive and murderous regime on the face of the earth to build an atom bomb should escape any penalty for her actions. That explains why there is such widespread public indignation that mistakes made earlier precluded proper consideration of prosecution of that woman when it might still have been possible.
Those admitted errors have totally distracted attention from the most important point about Vasili Mitrokhin's archive. Its production and release was an act of supreme courage by a true patriot, who saw that the KGB was destroying his country and working against the interests of the Russian people, and against democracy and freedom all over the world. The extent of KGB penetration was far greater than was realised at the time in the west, and it was a further remarkable success for the Secret Intelligence Service to have obtained the archive and achieved the safe exit of Mitrokhin and his family from Russia. Those crucial aspects of the case should be brought back to mind, as they were by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the Home Secretary and the Chairman of our Committee. They were the real messages of the Mitrokhin archive, not the mistakes that were made in handling some of the material—even the failure properly to address the question of prosecution. The significance of that archive is the courage of the man who produced it, and the competence and skill of our intelligence service in bringing that material to Britain and making it available for action at home and abroad.
I wish to touch briefly on one or two issues raised in the annual report. One is the employment tribunal issue, to which our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), referred. It was indeed the Committee that stressed the need for a dedicated employment tribunal for the staffs of security and intelligence agencies.
The Government say that they have acted promptly in the matter, but they did not introduce the amendment to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill until it was on Report in the House of Lords. They got it wrong, as they had to admit when they amended the first version that they introduced. Added to that, the regulations have not been produced that would make the tribunal available, which makes the Government's interpretation of the word "prompt" seem ludicrous.
The Government have taken a strange position with regard to the Committee's suggestion that the procedures are pretty draconian. Under them, the applicant can be excluded from the whole inquiry, and may be represented only by a special advocate. In addition, he has permission to make a statement only before the inquiry starts. The exercise of those strict powers ought to be reviewed, and we suggested that the commissioners would be the appropriate body for that.
The Government have discouraged and resisted that option, saying that an applicant could go to judicial review. However, it is absurd to suggest that a possibly quite lowly member of staff would have the resources to go to judicial review to achieve what other people achieve


by going to an industrial tribunal. The proposal does not address the gap that the Committee was seeking to deal with.
In their response, the Government said that they would consider whether the operation of powers of exclusion would benefit from involvement by the commissioners. I welcome that, but the Government also said that they would consider the matter in the light of experience. I doubt that there will be much experience to draw on, and I sincerely hope that I am right. We do not expect the tribunal to be taking a case a fortnight. Such cases are supposed to be pretty rare, and we do not want two more to go badly awry before the Government say, "Oh dear, there is something wrong. We had better start again."
We want to get the procedure right now. If there are any more cases that might sow potential difficulties for the future, they must be handled properly and in a way that conforms as closely as possible with the normal approach, based on natural justice, of employment tribunals. That should be the case from the start.
One of the other issues on which the report focuses is the assistance that the agencies could give in dealing with international drug traffic. Some very good work has been done, sometimes in very dangerous conditions, to support the law enforcement bodies in that regard. However, the objective for the agencies in such work never seems very clear, and neither does the proper level of resources that should be devoted to the task.
That is an important matter. The drugs problem and the damage that it does to society are so serious that, if it were clear that a substantial addition of resources could make a great difference, there surely could be no hesitation about finding those resources. The matter would be given a very high priority indeed, but it has never been clear how much of the traffic in drugs could be stopped by the application of extra resources.
Obviously, there is more than one reason for tracking down the traffickers. Drug trafficking is a hydra-headed monster. We can never put all the people involved behind bars, but it is desirable in principle that at least some should be caught and very severely punished.
What quantity of drugs can be confiscated, and what effect can be produced? Will we stop enough trafficking only to raise the street price a bit, or can we stop enough to make a significant difference to the problems in our society? If the difference is to be great, substantial additional resources must be provided. However, I do not think that Ministers have thought enough about what the intelligence effort on drugs trafficking can achieve and whether it deserves considerable resources. I hope that that question will be more clearly addressed.
Similar questions arise with regard to matters such as illegal immigration rackets. Intelligence can play a role in identifying the racketeers responsible for the other day's appalling tragedy in Dover, but it is not the agencies' role to deal with asylum seekers or individual immigration issues. Other agencies handle those matters, and the intelligence agencies have different and more compelling responsibilities. There is potential for co-operative effort to deal with serious organised crime related to immigration rackets, but that potential is limited and the effort needs to be well targeted.
The report also deals with the funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. In their response, the Government have indicated that they are reconsidering that matter. The present arrangements slice funds from hard-pressed police forces around the country, and it seems to us that they will never achieve the level of funding that may be necessary for the national and co-ordinated criminal intelligence effort that NCIS must provide.
An issue that figures significantly in the report is the management of major capital projects. After the drastic overspend on Thames house at Vauxhall cross, the GCHQ's new accommodation project was an obvious cause for concern as it is on a much larger scale. Completing it on time, to cost and with no interruption to operating capabilities requires the highest levels of expertise. Clearly, however, the project will not be completed to cost. The Government have stated publicly that new financial arrangements have had to be made, and there must be some doubt about whether the work will be completed on time with no interruption to operational capabilities.
The work of GCHQ is vital. The facility's presence in Cheltenham is strongly supported by the local community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) regularly reminds me. It needed new accommodation, so the project was necessary. However, I am not satisfied that the project management skill and expertise given to GCHQ was equal to such a large task. It is the biggest-ever private finance initiative, and a huge undertaking.
We have not heard the end of the story yet. The project is of great importance to the effective operation of our intelligence services and involves very large sums of money. If we are not careful, I fear that it will be dealt with by fire fighting rather than by the application of management skills and expertise. The sophistication of those skills goes beyond anything GCHQ or almost any part of Government has had to supply before.
My final point is a general one. The Committee and the House must recognise the danger that management attention in the agencies can be consumed to too great an extent with past mistakes and history. Scarcely a Sunday goes by without newspaper allegations about the agencies, either in the recent past or the very distant past. It is part of the regular Sunday newspaper diet.
Most such allegations have to be investigated, if they are not already under investigation, but some go back a long way. Often there are lessons to be learned, and sometimes stones must be turned over that have not been turned over before. However, agency managers must be allowed to keep their eyes on the ball, and to concentrate their efforts on current and future threats. That is what they are paid for. Their work was recognised in the welcome honours list award to Stephen Lander, and in his reappointment as head of MI5. It has been recognised also in the praise from hon. Members of all parties today.
Past mistakes have to be examined, but the agencies' primary task is to deal with current and future threats to the people of this country, to our democracy and our civilisation. Occasionally, we have to remember that.

Mr. David Winnick: I begin by wondering whether any of the defects and omissions in the way in which the security services handled the case


of Mrs. Norwood would have come to our knowledge if the Intelligence and Security Committee had not existed. The answer is pretty obvious: little or no such information would have come to Members of the House of Commons.
I say that because I well recall all the arguments endlessly repeated by successive Governments to explain why, given that the Security Service was accountable to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, it would be totally inappropriate to subject it to the scrutiny of a committee of parliamentarians. When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I pointed that oversight came into existence thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who is now Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). When they took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, it was felt that they would certainly win. As a result, the arrangements regarding oversight by the House of Commons were changed.
I may be considered to be a critic of the security services, but I have always accepted that all democracies need such services. Moreover, even if the terrorism of the past 30 years carried out by the IRA and loyalist groups had not existed, the need for the security agencies is nevertheless obvious. However, we should be under no illusions that all has been well. Peter Wright, for example, defends, or justifies, the state of near-lawlessness in which he operated as a senior MI5 agent, and the dirty tricks—targeted against the Labour Government of the time—for which he, although not only he, was responsible.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: In a moment. The way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was targeted because of his presidency of the National Union of Students could not be justified, and no Conservative Member would attempt to justify it—even the hon. Gentleman to whom I am about to give way.

Dr. Lewis: This must be the first time since I have been a Member of this House that I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman. However, he should set the record straight and point out that whereas Peter Wright said initially that large numbers of security services operatives were engaged in the sort of dirty tricks that he himself admitted to, subsequently he retracted that and admitted that if he had to put a real figure on it, that figure was one—namely, Mr. Peter Wright.

Mr. Winnick: Be that as it may, in my view, for what it is worth, Wright did not act alone—but I shall not pursue that point.
Paragraph 29 of the report shows that not only were senior Ministers not told about what had happened at the time, neither were the most senior members of the Security Service. If ever there was a case for parliamentary accountability, this is it. All the previous arguments put forward by Ministers fall to the ground. If the Intelligence and Security Committee had been in existence in the early 1990s, some of the non-disclosures would probably not have occurred.
As for Mrs. Norwood, I take the same view as other right hon. and hon. Members: it would have been far better if she had faced justice. I see from the report that

there is some doubt about the seriousness of the information that she passed on to Russian agents. I am only a layman in these matters, but I was rather surprised that, given her position in the organisation, she could have passed on such serious information. However, one thing is certain—if Mrs. Norwood had had more important information, she would not have had the slightest hesitation in passing it on. She wanted to do as much as possible for the regime to which she was loyal—the one that ruled in Moscow.
It would have been much better if she could have been taken to court but, by the time her role was revealed, nearly half a century had elapsed and she was in her late 80s. In many respects, Mrs. Norwood's real punishment is that the cause that she served with such dedication all her adult life has not only collapsed in Europe but has been exposed as downright evil.

Dr. Lewis: The evil empire.

Mr. Winnick: We all recognised that it was evil long before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the other events in eastern Europe. Let us think for a moment about the cause that Mrs. Norwood was serving. It was responsible for mass murder, the gulags, the denial of all civil liberties and the secret police, and it had contempt for the rule of law and truth. That is what she dedicated her life to. So I suppose that it could be said that she has had her punishment, even if it was not the sort of punishment that she should have had for betraying her country.
The Shayler case has been in the news for nearly three years now. I am certainly not an apologist for what Shayler did, but I doubt whether there is much to be gained by pursuing the matter. The French court has refused extradition, and the affair continues; I do not know how much time and money is being spent on it. Some newspapers are involved and are in danger of being taken to court again. Whether Shayler was the right sort of person to have been recruited for MI5 in the first place is, to say the least, doubtful. Clearly he is eager to play the martyr, and my view—which is perhaps the minority view—is that the sooner this saga is ended, the better it will be for the security services.
One argument is that if Shayler gets away with it, others in the security services would spill the beans. It would be a poor state of affairs if there were other people like Shayler in the security services who needed to be discouraged. Let us hope that he is a one-off. Whether his motive is money or conviction—I suspect that it is money, but I could be wrong—I think that we should end this business.

Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on one thing: we hope that Shayler is a one-off. However, the hon. Gentleman's contrast in logic is interesting. He says that Mrs. Norwood should have been punished for committing crimes betraying our nation, but that Shayler should not be dealt with for the alleged crimes betraying our nation with which we want to charge him.

Mr. Winnick: That is a point of a kind. If I may say so—what the hon. Gentleman said had occurred to me before his intervention—there is a difference between what Mrs. Norwood did and what Shayler did. How long


will the Shayler saga continue? Will it go on until next year, and the year after that? As I said, I think that it should be ended soon, but obviously some disagree.
My final point is about accountability. The ISC has done a good job, although I had doubts at the beginning about whether it was the right kind of Committee, and about the people on it. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) mentioned the fact that in a previous debate I had made the criticism that its members would all be made Privy Councillors. I had my suspicions, and I am pleased to say that I was wrong.
I do not want to give the impression that the ISC has not done a good job. It has, and I congratulate it on its activities as a Committee of parliamentarians. Nevertheless, I take the view—as does the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member—that there should be a different form of parliamentary accountability. In its third report, which came out in June last year, the Committee said:
In our view, it is inevitable that the intelligence services will one day become accountable to Parliament. That is the logical outcome of the process of reform embarked upon by the previous Government. The existing arrangements are merely transitional and are still evolving—witness the fact that the ISC itself is now demanding, and has been given, facilities that were undreamed of when it was established only five years ago. We hope that the Government will keep an open mind on this issue.
Some of the arguments against establishing a Select Committee were made in former times, when it was argued strongly that the intelligence services should have no parliamentary scrutiny. However, we are evolving. I think that some form of Select Committee will be established within the next 10 years or so. I may not be here by then, but I can imagine others pointing out all the criticisms that were made at the time of the idea of setting up such a Committee.
I accept that the ISC has shown independence, but we need to go further. We need a Committee that reports directly to the House. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Committee to be set up by the Prime Minister and to report to the Prime Minister. Members of Parliament on such a Committee, like those on other Committees, should report directly to the House. That does not mean that any such Committee can operate like other Select Committees, but in the end there should be that form of parliamentary accountability, which means reporting here, rather than to the head of the Executive.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am confident that this does not meet my hon. Friend's requirements, but I should like to point out to him that recently members of the Foreign Affairs Committee met a senior representative of the security agencies. As one who was there, I can say that it was a very useful meeting.

Mr. Winnick: I accept that entirely.
If the change recommended by the Home Affairs Committee came to pass at some time—obviously, that will not be now—it would send an important signal that the oversight process was totally independent of the Executive. That is not the present position. While I praise the work of the members of the ISC, there is not the feeling that they are totally independent of the Executive, not because they are not independent-minded Members

of Parliament, but because of the manner in which the Committee is set up, which sends the wrong signals. That is no reflection on my colleagues or on the Opposition Members who serve on the Committee, and do so with great distinction.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is effectively appointed to his position on the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the Government Whips office. Is that Committee independent of the Executive?

Mr. Winnick: Of course the way in which we get on to Committees is not independent of the Executive, but once a Committee is in existence and once we are on it, there is no doubt that we are independent of the Executive and report directly to the House. If it is argued that there is not really much difference in practice between the ISC and the sort of Select Committee that I would like to see created, that is all the more reason why further consideration should be given to setting up such a Committee.

Mr. Barron: Given that everyone would agree that if the Committee were a Select Committee of the House it would still have to work within the ring of secrecy, no doubt some of the evidence that it took could never be reported. My hon. Friend's Committee's report was published before our annual report, to which I referred in my speech. The asterisks in our annual report would also have been in any report by such a Select Committee. In view of all that, what is the practical difference, given that my hon. Friend's report took even longer than ours—a delay that we complained about—to be debated in the House?

Mr. Winnick: In the end it is a matter of whether the right signals are sent. The very fact that the ISC remains the subject of controversy because of the way in which it is set up is important. Select Committees are not set up in that way.
I tried time and time again, with others—I believe that my hon. Friend was not in the House at the time, or if he was he did not take part in our debates—to persuade the then Government to give some parliamentary oversight. Time and again I was told that that was not possible. Therefore, I speak with some experience on the matter.
The ISC has done a good job, and I am pleased with what is happening, but it is not likely that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will change the position in the near future. I have no doubt that at some stage there will be a Select Committee, and when it comes into existence it is extremely unlikely that my hon. Friend, or anyone else, will say that we should revert to the ISC as it stands now.

Mr. Michael Howard: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). To adopt a phrase that that hon. Gentleman used, I thought that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) had a point of a kind, and that it was a pity he did not acknowledge that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a relatively brief contribution to this important debate. I join with others who have recognised the significance of the


availability to the House of an opportunity to express its views on the workings of the security and intelligence agencies. The work that they do is vital for the well-being of our country, and I begin by paying tribute to the agencies and the way in which they perform their duties.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said, reports, debates and press coverage inevitably tend to concentrate on those few occasions when things go wrong. There is much less coverage on the many more occasions when things go right, often spectacularly so, and as a result of resourceful, relentless and extremely diligent work that the agencies conduct on our behalf. We are greatly in their debt.
I do not believe that occasional lapses, even serious lapses, from the high standards that the agencies rightly set themselves should be allowed to obscure that important and central fact. In paying that tribute, I am happy to associate myself with the remarks of the Home Secretary and others about Sir Stephen Lander. I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed, and warmly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that his term of office is to be extended.
I also pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was set up by the previous Government. The present Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, has been its Chairman from its inception. It has won universal respect, and that has a great deal to do with the way in which my right hon. Friend has chaired it. It has worked remarkably well, and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so for a long time to come.
I am also glad to have the opportunity to endorse the Home Secretary's tribute to Lord Nolan and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith for the oversight work for which they were the responsible commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman was right. I agree with everything that he said about the work that they have done.
I should like to say a few words about the Committee's report on Mitrokhin and then make some suggestions for the Committee's future programme. The fact that Mitrokhin confided in the Secret Intelligence Service, came to this country and provided such copious and vital information was, of course, a consequence of his personal bravery and courage, to which tribute has already rightly been paid, but it was also an outstanding coup for the Secret Intelligence Service. It was a remarkable operation, and none of the concerns that have arisen about subsequent events and the way in which certain information was handled should be allowed to cloud in any way the brilliance of that achievement.
As the Committee's report sets out, when I was Home Secretary I was not told about Mrs. Norwood. I think that I should have been told. Although the decision whether she should be prosecuted would have been for the Law Officers, I would have been entitled to be consulted about that decision. In the event, neither the Law Officers nor I were told. Clearly we should have been. I hope that lessons will be learned from that, and I am sure that they will.
I listened with interest to the earlier exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the Home Secretary. I would simply say—I am glad that the Home Secretary is in his place to hear me say it—that I think that he was

absolutely right to draw the distinction that he did between the culpability of Ministers and the culpability of their Departments. I would simply add, as gently as I can, that he was not quite as ready to make that distinction when he was in Opposition. I shall say no more about it than that.
As for the future work of the Committee, I am delighted that it has set out in the annual report its
intention to pursue the co-ordination between the Agencies and the law enforcement organisations in fighting serious organised crime, in particularly the Agencies work conducted overseas.
The involvement of the agencies in fighting serious organised crime began when I was Home Secretary, and I attached great importance to it. I have absolutely no doubt that the agencies have an enormous contribution to make.
I took particular steps to engage the agencies in proactive work, particularly in relation to the international traffic in drugs. It is well known that many drugs cartels are extremely sophisticated organisations, with resources that dwarf those available to many sovereign states and Governments. Only by the most determined employment of all means available can the countries whose populations suffer grievously from that evil trade hope to make an impact on it.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked some thoughtful questions about whether we can make a big difference to the trade and why, if we can, we do not devote more resources to the fight. I believe that we can make a significant impact on the trade if we take our efforts seriously and devote the required resources. I hope that the Committee will pursue its inquiries into how action is working out in practice. I note from paragraph 68 of the report that the Committee is not at present confident that all that could be done is being done. I hope that the Committee will pursue that point and that the Government will take the report very seriously.
I hope that the Committee's interest in better co-ordination will not be limited to the work of the agencies in relation to serious organised crime. There is always a danger of duplication and a lack of co-ordination between the various agencies. It is essential that the utmost vigilance is exercised in order to minimise that danger. The Committee could have an important role in helping to achieve that.
Finally, I want to say a word about an aspect of the work of the agencies that seems to me to be of absolutely crucial significance. It is well known, although obviously there are constraints about what can be said in public on the matter, that the close co-operation that has taken place over the years between the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and those of other English-speaking countries—particularly those of the United States of America—has been of inestimable value to all concerned. Those have probably been among the most fruitful working relationships that have ever occurred between different countries.
Today is not the day for an extensive debate on all the implications of the Government's determination to press ahead with the European defence initiative. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised that matter


yesterday, quoting the comments of the French Minister responsible for European affairs, who said last week in connection with defence policy:
We don't agree with the "Americanisation" of the world … we are saying that together we can build a new superpower … and its name will be Europe.
That is just one of a number of recent statements by highly placed members of the French Government that have contained more than a tinge of anti-Americanism. If, instead of continuing to be a partner of the United States of America, Europe sets about becoming its rival, will that not place great strain on a relationship that has been of so much benefit to this country, to the United States, to Europe and to the world as a whole? Will not those strains be particularly severe in intelligence, in which, so far as this country is concerned, the relationship is perhaps even closer than in any other field?
The Government have consistently sought to brush off any such concerns, but I believe that real issues exist that merit the closest scrutiny. I hope that the Committee will feel able, within its remit, to pursue those matters to ensure that all the implications of the Government's actions are properly considered.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I shall not pursue the route taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but I remind him of a visit made to America by him, me and others last year, during which the matters that he just raised were discussed. If I recall correctly the conversations that took place, the Americans were not as concerned as he would have us understand them to be. Following the problems that arose during the war in the former Yugoslavia, the American view was that we needed to build a European pillar and to take on greater responsibilities. That is precisely what we are doing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to dismiss comments made to us on that visit.

Mr. Howard: I do not wish to turn the debate into a private argument of recollection about what was said during our visit to the United States. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the discretion with which concerns expressed during that visit were put forward. Since that visit, more than a year ago, matters have proceeded apace on the development of a European defence initiative outside the framework of NATO. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be perfectly possible—indeed, desirable—for enhanced European co-operation on defence to occur, and for the pillar to which he referred to be set up, within NATO. That, however, is not what is being envisaged.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I note no detectable difference between the position today and that outlined last year. I do not want to go too far down that route now.
This will probably be my last opportunity to speak on this matter. For reasons of ill health, I shall retire next year, and, if the delay in holding the next debate is similar to that for this one, this will definitely be my last chance. For that reason, I wish to reflect on my experience on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall pay some

tributes, but shall also make some slight criticism of the current structure. I concur with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Chairman of the ISC, would agree that the Committee is among those best attended by parliamentarians. He may take the view that it would sometimes have been better if had not been so well attended. The Committee holds vigorous debates within its structure, and it is not all plain sailing with everyone agreeing. We vigorously debate issues relating to the services, and there are differences of opinion. We leave the Committee agreed, however, because a common strand unites us—our belief in the task that we have undertaken and in the excellent service provided by the agencies.
Before I speak about the structure, I pay my personal tribute to all the people whom I have met over the years who are involved in front-line activities. Yes, we do meet people in the services—although we do not know who they are, so that we are not compromised. We must pay great tribute to the bravery of many of those people.
We met Mitrokhin. He is a man of considerable courage. I believe that what he did was done for his country. He acted in the belief that people in the former Soviet Union should, at some time in the future, have the opportunity of reading what he said. He set out the truth as he saw it and, one day, will be one of the great figures in the new nation that is being created within the former Soviet Union.
I want to say a little about how the Committee works, because I am often asked "Does this structure work?". Yes, it works. It holds the system to account. There are problems, but the role of the Committee is changing. The process of accountability is constantly increasing and developing. The way that the Committee operates at the end of one year is very different from its operation at the end of the previous year. There are reasons for that.
Within the agencies, there is a recognition of the need for greater accountability. I am sure that our arguments in Parliament were just as vigorously pursued in the agencies when they considered the changes that took place in the early 1990s. The highly charged response of the media to the allegations of Shayler and Tomlinson have also exerted some pressure on the process of accountability.
There is a new generation of young people in the agencies. Perhaps their values are different from those of people who have been members of the agencies for many decades. When we meet such young people, I am very conscious that they are aware of the role of parliamentarians. They see the role of Parliament positively. In many ways, they see a partnership between the heads of the institutions that they represent and the membership of the Committee. The attitude of people in the agencies—especially young people—is extremely healthy and helpful.
The agencies are beginning to realise that it is better to have us on their side. At times, the arguments that they want to have—certainly on finance—are, in essence, political. The arguments are about priorities. The agencies will have noticed that some of the comments that they made to us about the need for additional resources—not generally, but in particular areas—were picked up in the report.
The report—unlike that of many Select Committees—is written in great part by members of the Committee. Often, Committee reports are written by the Committee clerk and subject to amendment by its members. We should be open about that fact. That is the reality for many Select Committees, although that does not detract from my general view as to the need for Select Committee status.
The agencies have learned to trust Members of Parliament. My colleagues and I have signed the Official Secrets Act—but it is more than that. When people in the agencies discuss their business with us, they need to know that our commitment is a little more than mere compliance with the legislation. They need to know that we believe that the ring of secrecy must be in place to safeguard their interests. I hope that, over the years, they have learned that the secrets of the state are just as safe with politicians as with people in the agencies.
There have been difficulties—they know that. If they have felt under pressure during questioning from the Committee, they should realise that we were only exercising our right to hold them to account. That is what the process is about; we are helping them in their task.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Surely, he is not saying that all politicians can be trusted with a blank cheque for access to all the secrets of the agencies. In the Mitrokhin archive itself, two now-deceased politicians—Tom Driberg and Raymond Fletcher—were named as agents of a foreign power. What would have happened if they had accidentally been appointed to an ISC? There must be some protection.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is protection. The Whips nominate and the Prime Minister appoints. Therein lies the protection for which the hon. Gentleman calls.
Another reason why change is going on and why the system is so important is that there is an international movement under way in terms of accountability—the right hon. Member for Bridgwater made some allusion to that. Our system is not unique. It exists in various forms in countries throughout the world. In America, it is extremely advanced, and less advanced in some parts of Europe. Without breaching the Official Secrets Act, I shall tell hon. Members of a particular incident that I shall always remember after I have left the House.
In a former eastern European satellite state, I attended a dinner with a committee that mirrored the British ISC. Around the table, monitoring their country's security services, were people who, during the dark years of east European and Russian fascism, had been imprisoned for five, 10 or 15 years. One man, who is now the chairman of his country's committee, spent 12 years in prison. The work that he is doing must have been unimaginable to him then. That is the sea change that is taking place internationally—as such committees are set up to carry out a vitally important task.
Those committees are all going down a single road—the British system. Within 20 years they will all arrive—they will have created a system that mirrors the American one. The American system is the best. We are told that it leaks, but when one talks to people who work in those committees or who monitor them—certainly in Congress and in the Senate—they say that the system is leak-proof.
None the less, people in the congressional and senatorial system have access to almost every secret of the state and are made aware, in advance and in great detail, of operations carried out by their intelligence services. That is unimaginable in the United Kingdom. If we raise such ideas in our Committee, there is great resistance to them in the services themselves. However, I say to people in the services that that system will come here and that it will work. It works in America, so that agenda is inevitable.
The march of history will, I am sure, underwrite precisely what I have said today. The arguments about whether the ISC is a Select Committee will simply be cast aside by history. The process is inevitable; it will happen. My hon. Friend the Minister may resist a little today, but the word "now" in the Government's response was fought over and it indicates the way in which we are going. I say to hon. Members, "Just watch this space." and I say to members of the agencies, "Please do not resist."
Although the ISC reports to the House to account for itself, it is essentially a system of extra-parliamentary accountability, and I do not accept that such a system is fully credible. Yes, it is credible, but not fully credible.
I read with interest the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the other members of the Committee on that excellent report. It addressed all the issues that I have addressed over the years. I also pay tribute to those friends on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs who support the view that I have expressed today. However, they have not yet decided to produce a report to set out their views, because, as I understand it, they are in a minority at present.
I also pay tribute to the work of the highly important Liaison Committee for its excellent report. It is the most senior Committee of parliamentarians, which comprises all the Chairmen of the Select Committees. It drew up a resolution that states that it believes that the issue of a Select Committee will not go away. Its report says that it will return to it. That agenda will not disappear.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I remind him that its report on the Sierra Leone affair recommends that the Foreign Office should show a mature attitude
towards controlled access for the Foreign Affairs Committee to appropriate intelligence material and to witnesses from the Secret Intelligence Service.
Needless to say, the Foreign Office's response rejected that sensible recommendation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I do not want to show any disloyalty to my Committee but, in the structure that I want established, it would not be necessary for the Foreign Affairs Committee to carry out investigations in the way that he suggests. A parliamentary Committee—the Intelligence and Security Committee—would carry out such inquiries and it would be able to transfer information across the parliamentary Select Committee system to other Committees provided that it had the approval of the Prime Minister and resolutions gave it permission to do so.
The reasons for Select Committee status were set out in—if I may say so—my modest contribution to a debate at column 617 on 2 November 1998 in which I outlined


the mechanics of my proposed system. I hope that those with an academic interest in the subject will take the opportunity of referring to that modest contribution. My speech centred on the ability to refer matters to other Select Committees; the power of Parliament to call for persons and papers, an issue on which I am not able to go into detail today; the power to take evidence on oath, a power that Parliamentary Committees have and that the Standards and Privileges Committee exercises occasionally; the power to offer the defence of privilege to statements given by our witnesses, a matter that has still not been satisfactorily resolved; and the greatest power of all, which is the power to hold witnesses in contempt if they mislead Members of Parliament when giving evidence.
The latter is the ultimate power. I do not believe that we are being misled, but we should have the power to hold people in contempt if we are misled. That would signal to the outside world that we will not be misled, because members of the agencies will know that they will be held in contempt if what they say is subsequently found to be untrue. I do not question what the witnesses say, but we must have such a failsafe arrangement.
We have been told—we have heard it again today—that legislation would be required to implement my proposal. Let me make it absolutely clear. That is nonsense. Legislation is not required; all that is required is a resolution of the House of Commons. That is not my view, but that of the Clerks when I approached them two years ago to check my analysis of the changes that would be required.
Safeguards would be needed, and I know that hon. Members have expressed their concerns. Some argue that no way can be found to restructure the practices and procedures of the Select Committee so as to ensure Executive influence for reasons of national security over material that it may seek to publish. That is simply untrue. A resolution of the House could require that the Committee sought the approval of the appropriate agency before reporting to the House. The resolution could further provide that in the event that a dispute arose between the agency and the Committee over the publication of information or evidence in a report to the House, the matter of the dispute could be referred to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his decision and the Committee could be required to comply with his decision.
If, in unforseen circumstances, the Committee or any member of it were to threaten to breach the Committee's rules of procedure as approved by the House, it would always be open to the Leader of the House, on the instruction of the Prime Minister, to dissolve the entire Committee or remove any member of it on a resolution tabled on one day and that took effect the next.
We are told that such a Committee could not be prevented from taking evidence in public session if that were the wish of the Committee. A resolution of the House could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee taking evidence in public session. A resolution of the House could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee publishing reports, and it could further place a requirement on the Committee to seek the

permission of the appropriate agency, and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute, if it wished to publish a report.
There is no reason that the resolution of the House should not stipulate the procedure to be used in the publication of reports. It could require the Committee to publish its reports subject to sidelining by the Prime Minister for reasons of national security, as currently happens.

Mr. Mates: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I wish to make my own remarks on this subject. However, all the exceptions that he has just listed would turn his brand new Select Committee back into the Prime Minister's ISC.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me when I said that hon. Members should read my modest contribution of 2 November 1998. In it, he will see the answer to the question that he has just asked.
I have referred to some of the changes and some of the differences, but there are many powers that the ISC does not have which would rest with a new Select Committee.

Mr. Winnick: With respect to the Opposition Members who are present now and who were around at the time of the original debate, I cannot recall any of them advocating any sort of parliamentary oversight for the security services. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) points at himself, so perhaps he did so, but that makes him the exception. Almost no Conservative Member that I can recall stood up and advocated such oversight.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In fact, we do have support on the Opposition Benches—there are some Conservative Members who feel strongly about these matters, but they are not present in the Chamber today.
As I said, my last speech on this subject before my retirement gives me my only chance to raise certain controversial issues, one of which is the general principle of the treatment of whistleblowers. Every organisation has aggrieved people—we even have them here in the House of Commons. Wherever people congregate to work, there will be some who have problems and grievances. In most organisations, there are established routes for dealing with those grievances and I wish to explore those available within the services for which we have some monitoring responsibility.
If a person within the services generally has a grievance, he can go to his trade union or staff association, depending on which service he works in. He can go to line management within the organisation at progressively more senior levels, depending on the response he receives. In the services, he can go to his staff counsellor, who has been given the powers to deal with certain problems that might arise. I suppose, in extreme circumstances, if that individual still feels that his argument is not being heeded, he can go to the Cabinet Secretary and argue the case there. There is also a system of employment tribunals that has been recommended by the Committee. We await the details, in the absence of the regulations mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater; we have expressed our concerns about the delay, but the new structure is being set up.
What happens if, even at that stage, having gone through all those processes, a person who is grieving feels that he is not being listened to? Recent experience has drawn our attention to the fact that people in those circumstances tend to move abroad, even though, in doing so, they apparently break the law. They feel that their voice can be heard only from outside the United Kingdom. The problem that then arises is that when people say that they should not be prosecuted, they misunderstand the response that the state must make in such circumstances: the idea that the services can ignore the breaking of the law is preposterous; the state has to respond in one way or another, depending on the circumstances.
In such conditions, can complainants who remain dissatisfied seek redress by some other route? I cannot say that the ISC should receive and deal with complaints, as that is not within our remit as currently defined and set down in the law. It is clear that the ISC is not a vehicle to be used as a receptacle for complaints. The question remains, therefore, what can complainants do if all else fails?
I wonder whether they can approach a Member of Parliament to find a solution to their problem. As we all know, there are Members of Parliament who specialise in such matters. It may well be that a whistleblower will choose to go to his Member of Parliament and set out his case—hopefully, without breaching the Official Secrets Acts, which he should avoid doing at all costs. Even if he did breach the Acts during the course of the conversation, if it could be shown that he did so without malevolence and not in a deliberate attempt to bring matters into the public domain, it strikes me as improbable that the prosecuting authorities would want to prosecute—although that is a matter for their judgment.
I would never invite people to go to their Member of Parliament and break the law by spilling the beans, even as a last resort. None the less, people who feel such a strong grievance that they are impelled to act in a way that I personally would regard as thoroughly irresponsible might consider going to their Member of Parliament before acting.
It has been an honour for me to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I always used to say that my most enjoyable experience was serving on the Public Accounts Committee for 11 years, but the ISC has proved a wonderful experience. The comradeship among the membership, despite our minor disputes, has been first class and we have worked together extremely well. To those outside who wonder about the structure, I repeat: the structure needs reforms, but it does work—it does work.

Mr. Michael Mates: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I strongly agree that our shared experiences of the past six years are far better than the membership of any Select Committee could have been, and I am glad that he has become a convert.
My colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee have picked most of the plums out of the reports that we have debated, so I shall content myself with addressing two issues. In connection with both, I shall draw on my experience as a member of the Select Committee on Defence for 12 years; for six of those years, I had the honour of being its Chairman.
The first issue is financial oversight. The Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have said that our Committee is in the process of overseeing some extremely expensive projects. That is always a difficult task for parliamentarians, because, by and large, we are not involved in making the decisions that set the projects in train. My experience on the Defence Committee related to the Trident project—an enormous project, 10 times larger than the GCHQ project, which is itself large. The Defence Committee examined that project every year for 11 years, and I can state that such constant and repeated scrutiny makes a difference to the way in which Ministers and officials make decisions on long-term projects.
I can speak only for myself, but I believe that my colleagues on the ISC will agree that, during the coming four or five years of the GCHQ project, it must be made absolutely clear to officials at GCHQ, the Foreign Office and the Treasury—and anywhere else that that large project touches—that we shall be watching, we shall return to it again and again, and we shall report on it as often as we feel necessary. A fundamental part of any oversight Committee's duty is to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent effectively and well.
We must also ensure that the services involved in the project are able to maintain their vital efficiency during transition periods resulting from huge advances in technology. The speed of that technological advance is one of the most difficult problems that they have to cope with. One can start to put in place a proposed IT system but, six months later, someone will have thought of something better, so it will be out of date. If one is on a fixed-price contract, it will cost more to change the system. We accept that and, no doubt, allowances must be made for it.
I do not want to go into details as we are not ready to report, but I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to learn that the matter will be a major feature of the Committee's annual report this year. Things have already gone wrong as a result of lack of skill in managing a project of that size, and that needs to be taken into account. Lessons must be learned very fast indeed to ensure that a bad situation—which, I believe, we are in at the moment—does not become worse.
Until this afternoon, I thought that I carried with me all members of the Committee bar one. Now, however, I shall have to do a little more work before saying that again. Consequently, I speak entirely for myself on the question of a Select Committee. I was a member of one Select Committee for 12 years and know the limitations of such a Committee. I was also a member of a Select Committee that dealt with extremely sensitive matters. Indeed, those matters were probably more sensitive than those handled by any other Select Committee, as we were right into the nuclear business, the deterrent business and some of the most secret weapons development business. We had a constant battle to be told what we needed to know. Neither of those who advocates establishing a Select Committee has mentioned that.
It is not a question of being in a position to know everything. Indeed, it is quite wrong that anybody should be in such a position. However, one needs to know about secret, delicate and confidential matters before one is told about them. The hon. Member for Workington


(Mr. Campbell-Savours) advocated the American system. However, the Americans know far more than they need to, which is why they have leaks.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What leaks?

Mr. Mates: Leaks from members. A member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the House of Representatives, for example, was thrown off it for leaking. That has not happened in the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I pray that it never will. We are in a position in which we are told everything that we need to know. We sometimes have to struggle to get that information, but that is part of the constructive tension which, in fact, is getting much better, as we are becoming more and more trusted as a result of not leaking.
If, to be dogmatic, we were to say that the Committee should not be different from any other in the House of Commons and should be a Select Committee—with all the reservations mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington which, in fact, is why the Intelligence and Security Committee is different—would we be able to oversee the intelligence services better? Frankly, I do not believe that we would. Such a Committee would be less good, as we would have to rebuild the whole system of trust and there would be Committee members who were immune to removal, except by a vote in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Workington knows perfectly well how difficult it would be to obtain that.
At the moment, there is a sanction on us: if I say something out of place—perhaps not here, but certainly outside—the Prime Minister can fire me tomorrow. That is right, as I am in a privileged position within a ring of secrecy in which some very important matters are discussed. The hon. Member for Workington said that dismissal from a Select Committee can take place the next day. However, that would not happen. I remind him of what happened when an attempt was made to remove a member of a Select Committee at the beginning of a Parliament. The matter was delayed until, eventually, it had to be debated.
That is the nature of this place, and it is the nature of troublemakers to make sure that such things happen. While I am on the subject of troublemakers, let me say that if people feel that the Committee is less independent than a Select Committee of the House of Commons, they should look at the hon. Member for Workington, who is on it. I was surprised when he was appointed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I bet you were.

Mr. Mates: I have been extremely happy to work with the hon. Gentleman over the past three years and am glad to pay tribute to him for his work, which has been conscientious and keen, with the exception of one or two bees buzzing around his bonnet that we have to keep swatting. However, the suggestion that a parliamentary Committee of which the hon. Gentleman is a member is the Executive's poodle does not bear close examination.
It has been acknowledged all round that the Committee is successful. The case for turning a Committee that is working well into a Select Committee is non-existent.

Mr. Tom King: As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee has drawn on international experience and

visited other countries. The problem that he has just described is precisely what happened in Australia. When the Australians first conceived the idea of an oversight committee, it was introduced in the federal Parliament. As a result of inadvertence or the Whips looking around quickly to see who was interested in intelligence, all those with such an interest were appointed to the Committee. However, they were what my right hon. Friend would call the bother squad. His point about trust is critical to this, as the Committee was frozen out of the process completely and the agencies made a point of telling it as little as they could about anything. In the event, the Parliament realised that the whole thing was a failure, and the committee collapsed and had to be reconstituted.

Mr. Mates: My right hon. Friend makes the point very adequately.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is my point.

Mr. Mates: Yes, but what my right hon. Friend described has not happened to us because we have been properly constituted. If we were in a Select Committee, we would not be in the same position.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the difference? In each case, the Whips select the Committee members.

Mr. Mates: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to make his point or my point. His point is that, because the Intelligence and Security Committee is not a Select Committee, it is not independent. My point is that that makes no difference to selection, although there is some consultation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is the power that counts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have sedentary conversations.

Mr. Mates: I am not sedentary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would rather this were not a conversation.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way as he is winding up.
Conservative and Labour members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are united in the view that there are occasions on which it might be appropriate to cross-examine witnesses from the intelligence agencies.

Mr. Mates: I fully accept that the Foreign Affairs Committee would like to do that. When I was Chairman of the Defence Committee, I would have liked to cross-examine the defence intelligence services. Of course, we all want to do that. However, is it right? I am firmly of the view that the existence of the Intelligence and Security Committee means that there is no need to do that, unless one wishes to argue that the Committee is not doing its job properly.
Of course, it would be nice for the Select Committee on Home Affairs to make such a cross-examination. Members of that Committee all have their own agendas. Indeed, the report on the ISC was cooked up three years ago by three hon. Members who are very proud of what


they have done. I, however, think that they are greatly mistaken. Writing and producing a report with an agenda means that one ends up saying some rather silly things. For example, the third report of the Home Affairs Committee states:
the scrutiny committee—
meaning the Intelligence and Security Committee—
should be … clearly seen to be independent of the executive.
For the past half hour, the hon. Member for Workington has shown how independent he is of the Executive. The report concludes:
it is inevitable that the intelligence services will one day become accountable to Parliament.
They are. That accountability is here now, today. With my colleagues, I am proud to be part of that excellent accountability process.

Sir Archie Hamilton: I should like to join hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying the highest tribute to people who work in the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service, who do a fantastic job for the country and risk their lives in doing it. I should also like to pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I had the privilege of sitting in the last Parliament. Indeed, that was a great job, which I enjoyed enormously. The report on Mitrokhin is first class and a good extension of the Committee's activities.
I should like to talk about the structure and accountability of our security and intelligence services. Whatever we make of the Mitrokhin case—it must be said that the archive was an enormous wealth of intelligence—it raises serious concerns about the accountability of the services. The fact that the possible prosecution of Melita Norwood was never referred to Ministers and that the Law Officers were never consulted about whether she should be prosecuted should concern us all very much. We cannot second-guess the decision about whether Mrs. Norwood should have been prosecuted, and that is not the question, but that should have been a ministerial decision. We should be concerned that Ministers were not involved at key moments and learned of her existence only when it was probably too late to do anything. Those worries were also expressed by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
My concerns go further. One of the problems with the two main agencies and GCHQ is that they answer to two of the busiest Secretaries of State in any Government this country has had. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have the time to go into the detail needed to make sure that the agencies are held to account, and the fact that the Prime Minister is inevitably involved in the agencies does not mean that they are being held to account. Those are the most pressurised Ministers in the Cabinet of any Government.
Much has been made of what might happen to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and whether it might be beefed up in some way. I shall not get involved in the issue of a Select Committee, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). It is immaterial what parliamentary Committee oversees the services. The Intelligence and Security Committee is doing a first-class job, and I can

see no reason to believe that a Select Committee could do a better one. The problem, however, is that there are, inevitably, limits to what can be done by any parliamentary Committee.
That problem always comes down to operational matters. Are we to have a parliamentary Committee that gets involved in knowledge of operational matters in the agencies? I do not believe that that will ever happen. The people who want it to happen do not help their case by quoting the United States. The experiences of the United States have been somewhat bruising, and that makes it much less likely that Members of this House will be made privy to operational matters in the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service.
We need a new sense of accountability within Government. Since the days when I was on the Committee, I have advocated that we should have a Minister who is responsible for the two agencies and GCHQ. He should be at the level of Minister of State, operate within the Cabinet Office and answer directly to the Prime Minister. We would then have somebody in a unique position to judge value for money. That Minister would be completely in the ring of secrecy and would know precisely what the agencies were up to. He would be in a stronger position to make sure that resources were deployed in the right directions. He would be able to demonstrate to the Government as a whole whether they were getting value for money, and they would then be able to alter priorities.
There has been talk on both sides of the House about co-ordinating the activities of the two agencies. That could more easily be done if one Minister were responsible for them and able to bring them together. It might mean that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) would get a quicker response from the Government to his Committee's reports, and we might even have got an earlier debate.
That would only be the first step. The problems of the agencies are historical, and we can understand why we have ended up as we have. Before Christopher Andrew wrote about the Mitrokhin archives, he wrote an excellent book about the security services. He spelled out how the Security Service had been established and how the Secret Intelligence Service had its origins in naval intelligence, and so forth. We understand how we have arrived at our present position, but we have two agencies that we would not choose to set up if we started with a clean sheet of paper now.
It was understandable that we should have a home-based service and one based, and operating, abroad. However, we are continually saying that we live in a global marketplace, and communications have changed dramatically. The problems that the agencies are dealing with are international. Trade now works across the globe, and illicit trade is exactly the same. In the prosecution of the drugs trade it is now rather artificial to draw a line between people who operate in Bolivia, where the drugs are grown, or Colombia, where they are processed, and other people who deal with the drugs when they arrive in the United Kingdom and are distributed.
I am keen on the idea of a drugs tsar, but he should be somebody who emerges from one of the secret agencies and he should have total responsibility for pursuing drugs wherever they are and for being involved in the whole chain—from the growth of cocaine, for example, to its


distribution in this country. If we had such a person, we would cut down on duplication and allay the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who is worried about the degree of co-ordination and about duplication.
Espionage and counter-espionage are among the many other activities that are undertaken by the agencies, and there is not as great a division between those activities as people might imagine; indeed there are tremendous crossovers between them. As a result of the activities of the Secret Intelligence Service, Gordievsky and Mitrokhin produced a mass of information that enabled the Security Service to prosecute people in this country. Many people are recruited as agents when they are in this country. We draw an artificial line between espionage and counterespionage, and I would like the two activities brought together under a single agency.
There is no line to be drawn between the agencies in dealing with terrorism because, almost invariably, terrorist acts executed in cities in this country are planned abroad. I should like to see a single agency dealing with terrorism. We must be careful not to continue the artificial division between home and abroad, when there is a web linking activities abroad to those in this country.
In 1994, under the previous Government, there was a great discussion of whether special branch or the Security Service should be responsible for dealing with terrorism in Great Britain. I confess that it did not worry me terribly who took control, as long as somebody did. As we now know, the Security Service came out on top, and we have seen a measurable improvement in our activities against Irish terrorism in this country. We can attribute an awful lot of that to the fact that those activities have been pulled together.
The tragedy is that, in an earlier period when Northern Ireland was more peaceful, we thought that it was a good idea to introduce police primacy, so the Royal Ulster Constabulary has a responsibility for intelligence in Northern Ireland. It would have been much better if Northern Ireland intelligence activities had been brought together under the Security Service.
We should seriously consider bringing both agencies and GCHQ together in a single service, underneath which people could be responsible for the main areas of activity. That would avoid duplication and we could hold someone responsible, which is extremely difficult to do now, for the subsidiaries that would emerge under a single service. I totally accept that enormous political problems would be involved. Normally, in any Cabinet, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are quite big beasts—I am not sure how much that applies to the current ones—and vested interests would argue against such a change, but it should be seriously considered.
Those views were shared when I served on the Intelligence and Security Committee, certainly by Lord Gilbert. When he was persuaded to give up his seat—Dudley—and take a seat in the House of Lords, he was offered a ministerial position if Labour were elected in 1997. He was keen that his job should be as a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, responsible for the security and intelligence services, but something went wrong. I envisage an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" and

Lord Butler, as he now is, saying, "Very brave, Prime Minister." Lord Gilbert subsequently became Minister for Defence Procurement—a job that he had done 17 years earlier.
If the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service were reorganised, we should find that they operated much better. No business would be operated with such artificial divisions between home and abroad. We should carefully consider bringing the services together, and a start would be to have a Minister of State with responsibility for such matters in the Cabinet Office. If we went down that road, all our worries about duplication and overlap would disappear and we would have a much more efficient service in the areas that matter so much for the security and long-term strength of this country.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I begin with an apology for missing a small part of the Back-Bench contributions at the start of the debate for a reason which I cleared with Madam Speaker's Office in advance, but I apologise nevertheless. I think it almost presumptuous to intrude on a debate that has been dominated, from the Conservative Benches at least, by a raft of Privy Councillors and former Ministers; none the less, I shall give it my best shot.
This is one of those occasions when I think I perhaps made my most useful contribution before making my speech. To my surprise, I managed to secure from the Home Secretary a frank and unequivocal undertaking that, if and when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), does what he said he would do, as stated in The Sunday Times on 11 June, and asks
to see his MI5 file after discovering that the security service kept records on his case for 25 years
he will be sent away with a flea in his ear. That is in a sense the second undertaking in a row, because, as some hon. Members might recall, my previous campaign was provoked by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, demanding a couple of years ago that all old MI5 files, including the one held on him, should be destroyed. After initiating a special debate on the subject, I secured the Home Secretary's agreement that the Public Record Office would be properly brought into the process. A satisfactory outcome has now been reached, whereby files of historical value will be preserved on a much greater scale.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is sadly not in his place, paid eloquent tribute to Vasili Mitrokhin for what he did. Indeed, as we are talking about an intelligence triumph of which this huge book is only the tip, it must surely be recognised that 90 per cent. of the credit should go to Mr. Mitrokhin. The other 10 per cent.—an essential 10 per cent.—should be divided between MI6 and MI5 for getting him and his material safely out of Russia, processing and distributing it, and safeguarding its security so that the leads that it gave could be followed up as effectively around the world as has evidently been the case.
However, I am sure that the Security Service, in particular, did not like one aspect of the Mitrokhin affair—the emphasis that Mr. Mitrokhin rightly put on publication. I understand that Mr. Mitrokhin insisted that


if he were to allow the use of his material—and it remains his material—for intelligence purposes, it must be published to the world, for which I give him three hearty cheers, more hearty even than the plaudits that he has already rightly received during the debate. I have told the House on previous occasions of my concern about what I regard as the unnecessary cover-up culture involved in dealing with historical events on which the Security Service could easily afford to lift the curtain.
In the previous debate on the subject on 2 November 1998, I referred to the fact that Mosley's British Union of Fascists was funded by Mussolini. We now know that, as early as 1935, special branch and MI5 had verified that that was happening on a large scale. It should not have taken until late 1983 for the historical record to be set straight and for confirmation to be forthcoming from the Security Service archives.
Similarly, we know that the British Communist party—despite all its vehement denials year in, year out—was in the pay of the KGB and was funded at least from 1958 until at least 1979 by cash payments to Reuben Falber in this country from his KGB contact. Sums of up to £100,000 a year were involved—heaven knows what that would be worth today. We know that only because of the discoveries made in the archives in Moscow. If MI5 knew about it—I bet it did—it hung on to that secret material for a long time.
It is important to destroy that cover-up culture on historical matters because such dilemmas, debates and controversies often repeat themselves. When fighting front organisations for the communists in the post-war period, it would have been helpful to cite the example of front organisations for the fascists in the pre-war period having been funded in that way. It is also important as a deterrent. As Professor Christopher Andrew has said—although I am unsure whether it has been referred to in the debate—perhaps Mitrokhin's greatest achievement is the fact that no one who has ever been in contact with the KGB can be sure that sooner or later such deplorable behaviour will not come to light. That is a devastating blow to the Russian intelligence agency's reputation, which it will take decades to overcome, if it ever can.
Having said all that, I was a little disappointed—I should not be surprised if Mr. Mitrokhin himself was a little disappointed also—that this thick volume did not contain a larger number of revelations about spies in Britain. Indeed, when it was to be published, it was not intended to reveal the identity of Melita Norwood. She was identified only as Agent Hola or, as had been known for many years from the Venona transcripts, Agent Tina. Her identity became known only because of the sleuthing of David Rose, the BBC journalist who put together the film series "The Spying Game", of which more in a moment.
The problem is that the Security Service seems to take the view that unless and until a person is convicted in a court of law—no matter how guilty that person is of treachery, spying or acting as an agent of influence for a foreign and hostile power—that person's name must never be revealed, even if there are no security implications. I believe that if the evidence is strong enough, such an approach is fundamentally wrong and unjust. People in public life are often accused of all sorts of wrongdoing without being convicted in a court of law. The burden is on the accuser to prove his or her case, and the remedy of taking a libel action is there for the accused if the

accusation is false. I do not like the way decisions to conceal identities are made—sometimes for security reasons or as a bargain, but sometimes just to cover up embarrassment and so as not to rock the boat—because all too often people guilty of gross misconduct and treachery do not suffer even the punishment of having their deeds exposed to the contempt of their fellow countrymen.
I refer again to the excellent series "The Spying Game", and congratulate the BBC on that fine example of public service broadcasting. However, it had a slightly unfortunate aspect as it ran the exposure of a number of spies from different sources into a single collection. For example, Dr. Robin Pearson, the Hull lecturer, was exposed not by the Mitrokhin archive but by the Berlin Stasi archive, which has been available for some considerable time and was excellently researched by Dr. Anthony Glees, the academic who was the principal researcher for the relevant episodes of that series. Similarly, the identity of Professor Vic Allen, CND executive member, a Stasi agent in regular contact with East German intelligence who reported and spied on the anti-nuclear movement in order to make it even more helpful to Soviet foreign policy and military objectives than it was of its own volition, came out into the open only because of the revelations in the Stasi archive.
Some documents in that archive were not handwritten notes, valuable though those are, as in the case of Mitrokhin, but original documents such as receipts for the blood money that Dr. Pearson took from the East German intelligence agencies for his treachery, signed in his own hand. There should be no question of covering up the identities of those people, even if, for one technical or security reason or another, they are not to be prosecuted.
Eventually, I managed to secure a debate on the Berlin Stasi archive. However, I remain concerned that no proper examination of it was made until Dr. Glees went out there and made those discoveries for himself. Security Service operatives had been out there for a couple of days and took photographs of each other sitting on the toilet of Erich Mielke, the former intelligence boss. That was it, although there had been a Mitrokhin operative in reverse—Operation Rosewood—a few years earlier. The Americans succeeded in purchasing a vast quantity of Stasi material, which they made available to the British, just as we made the Mitrokhin material available to them. Nevertheless, there was no guarantee that everybody awaiting discovery in the original Berlin archive had been picked up in the archive sold to the Americans and passed on to us.
I want to cover two more points. The Home Secretary made a remark earlier, and I hope that no enthusiastic representative of his checking his contribution for Hansard will be tempted to alter it. He mentioned the threat from the Soviet Union then and the former Soviet Union now. He was right to make that remark, and I hope that it appears in the record tomorrow. There is still a threat from the former Soviet Union. This morning, I checked with the Clerk of the Defence Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, whether it would be in order to refer to something that happened in a meeting yesterday between ourselves and representatives of the Russian Duma. He confirmed that the meeting was not held under Chatham house rules or off the record, but I shall not be too specific.
I was perturbed by the presentation given by a number of members of the delegation, with whom I shall enjoy sitting down for dinner this evening at the invitation of Madam Speaker, for which I am grateful. I hope that it is not withdrawn in the next hour and a half. One of the delegation's observations can be summarised only as a crude attempt to divide the United Kingdom from the United States by suggesting that we should all be terribly concerned about the way in which the United States tries to promote its own security interests at the cost of those of Europe and the United Kingdom. There were also appeals to the fact that we had fought on the same side against the Nazis. That was true from 1941–45; I am not sure that it would bear scrutiny for 1939–41.
There were attempts to balance the enormously restrained NATO military attacks in the Kosovo crisis with the sheer barbarism in Chechnya. Incidentally, who believes that the bomb explosions in Moscow were caused by Chechen terrorists, conveniently giving the Putin regime the excuse that they needed to go in and devastate their homeland? Many Kremlinologists of repute in this country do not believe that it was anything other than a provocation and a pretext for both electoral and tactical military reasons by the Russian special services.
There have been worrying developments. There has been a noted rise in anti-semitic attacks in Russia. There has been an attempt by President Putin to displace the rabbi who serves the Russian-Jewish community with an extreme fundamentalist rabbi, who would be unrepresentative. There has been the arrest of Vladimir Gusinsky, which means the silencing of an independent voice that is critical of the regime, and this also carries overtones of anti-semitism.
During the election campaign, the one person, Grigori Yavlinski, who might have made it necessary for President Putin to go into a run-off ballot, was attacked on official television for being supported by "foreigners, Jews and homosexuals". The one thing that can be said about the situation in Russia is that although the Putin project is to recreate the power structures of the communists, it is to do it without Marxist ideology. The aim is to restore a powerful state and eventually to build a new version of the former USSR where there is political and military dominance, without the economic burdens of direct administration. That is an advantage because it does not involve the ideology that carries the appeal into other countries that communism used to have.
If the Home Secretary now recognises that there is still a threat from Russia, which we hope to get along with much better in the future than we did in the past, it is only right for him to reverse a decision, which I have been asking him repeatedly to do, to dismantle what was for many years the most important branch of the Security Service, namely F branch, which dealt with subversion. According to the third edition of the glossy booklet entitled "MI5 The Security Service", the
Security Service currently has no investigations in this area—
that is, the area of subversion. It continues:
During the financial year 1997/1998 only 0.3 per cent. of the Service's resources were allocated to the remnants of this work, predominantly to pay the pensions of retired agents.
It is not satisfactory that a country that still faces threats and that could still be subject to subversion should have dismantled the section of its Security Service that deals

with subversion. I have been grateful to the Home Secretary for what he has done in preserving files. I have been grateful to him also for what he has said today about preserving the ability of the Security Service not to have Members demanding access to their own files. I would be even more grateful to him if he would restore the one missing element of the jigsaw, which is the anti-subversion apparatus of MI5.

Mr. Norman Baker: First, I apologise to the House for not being present for the opening speeches, for a reason that I conveyed to Madam Speaker yesterday. It involved significant constituency activities, with a visit from leading French politicians and the signing of an accord in relation to the Newhaven port, which is of key importance to my constituents.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have listened with considerable interest to Members' speeches. I listened with, I hope, a learning mode in place. In many instances, those who have spoken are members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. They have an insight which I do not.
I hope to bring an outside view to the debate—that is, one from outside the Committee—and perhaps in one sense a more mainstream view of Members of this place than the privileged view which others have expressed this afternoon. I have that much in common, if perhaps nothing much else, with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), other than an interest in these matters.
There is a need to strike a balance between the proper secrecy procedures that are in place within our security services and the need for democratic accountability. The key question is how that balance is struck. In an answer to me, the Home Secretary said:
I accept that there should be … openness in the work of the Security Service, provided it does not endanger national security in any way.—[Official Report, 30 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 894.]
That seems to be a fair and proper description of how the Government should be approaching these matters.
I shall argue that perhaps we can go a little further a little faster in tilting the balance towards accountability without endangering national security in any way. I pay tribute to the steps that were taken by the previous Government under the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and that have been taken by the present Government to move slowly—sometimes painfully slowly—towards a more open and accountable system, which in my view has not endangered national security. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that further steps can be taken without endangering national security.
Not long ago, we were not even told that MI5 and MI6 existed. We started that far back. Now we have operations put on a legislative footing. We have the Intelligence and Security Committee and, as someone outside that Committee, I have formed the opinion that it does a good job.
I have confidence in the capabilities and the integrity of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who chairs that Committee. I have absolute confidence, of course, in my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who has been in the House since 1973, and in other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).


They bring not only experience but a commitment to democracy and civil liberties, which are important in examining the work of the intelligence and security services.
I pay tribute to the steps that have been taken, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East noted, by the Home Secretary in small ways to open matters up, and by the Foreign Secretary, who was kind enough to publish the Zinoviev letters in response to a written question of mine. We now have the annual debate in Parliament. Those are all worthwhile steps, but we can go further.
I shall deal first with the subject of files, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East referred. It is right that there is now independent scrutiny by officials of the Public Record Office. I called for that in November 1998. However, we are told in paragraph 79 of the Committee's annual report that 3,000 files were destroyed in the time between the decision to involve independent scrutiny being taken, and that scrutiny kicking in.
One wonders what was in those files. It must have been a fast operation to destroy them before the scrutiny process began. A fair-minded person must suppose that the files contained information that might cause embarrassment to the security services and that they might, with hindsight, regret compiling them.
I entirely concur with the future programme of work set out in the report with regard to files. I refer to paragraph 89 on page 36, which refers to three issues relating to personal files. The first is
whether individuals should have rights in connection with the destruction or otherwise of any file held on them and protections against having inaccurate information gathered, stored and used against individuals' interests.
That is a crucial issue for the Committee to pursue. It is a principle on which both the present Government and the previous one acted by introducing data protection in other respects. That seems consistent and should apply to material held by the security services.
There was speculation in the newspapers a while ago that a file was held on the Home Secretary and the then Minister without Portfolio, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine anyone who is less of a security risk than the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] From where I am standing, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be a fully paid-up member of the establishment. If files are held on such people, perhaps the security services have been a little over-enthusiastic in their information-gathering activities.
It is right that if a file has been held on the Home Secretary, or anyone else, which the security services deem it no longer operationally necessary to retain—that is a proper consideration—why should not that person have access to the file and know what was written about him or her? Otherwise, something that may have been written by a very junior official a long time ago could stay on someone's record for ever, which seems wrong. The record may be destroyed, but the memory remains.
People must have the right to challenge that information when the security services consider that the file no longer needs to be kept for operational reasons. I hope that the Committee will press for that.
The second issue in the Committee's future programme of work is
the position under future/current data protection legislation,

which is clearly linked to the first issue and to the third, which is
implications of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I commend the Committee for that programme of work on files, and I hope that progress is made.
On 29 July 1998 the Home Secretary, who I am pleased to see has returned to the Chamber, made a long, full and helpful statement about personal files. He said that there were 13,000 active files on United Kingdom citizens, and it would be interesting to know whether there is an up-to-date figure. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will be able to tell us; if not, I would be happy to table a question after the debate. The Home Secretary also said that 110,000 files were destroyed or earmarked for destruction. It is important to establish whether those earmarked for destruction have been destroyed, or whether they are lying around somewhere.
I refer Ministers to paragraph 47 of the 1997–98 report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which expressed anxiety about the age cut-off point. On the 110,000 files, it states:
We note however that reviewing in this respect is currently restricted to files on individuals who are over 55 years old. This means that there may be files on individuals under the age of 55 because they joined an organisation which was categorised as subversive possibly 20 years ago and these files may still be used for vetting and other purposes. However, no such files would be open on someone who joined the same organisation today.
It also says that the Committee will consider that further. I do not know whether the Committee has done that, but it is an important point.
Since being elected to Parliament, I have tabled several written questions on the interception of communications. I note with interest and perhaps a little anxiety that the number of warrants issued each year has continued to increase. In July 1998, Lord Nolan said:
I am satisfied that the substantial increase in interception is due to the continuing incidence of large-scale crime coupled with the greater interception facilities available to the various agencies.
That clearly explains why the number of interceptions has increased.
I want to consider Lord Nolan's second reason: the greater interception facilities available. That means that technology is progressing apace and that it is now possible to intercept more accurately and perhaps more speedily than hitherto. There is therefore a greater tendency—or, at least, temptation—for the security agencies, including the police, to use interception facilities. That may be useful in detecting large-scale crime. I am sure that we are all grateful if the use of the facilities has facilitated the detection of large-scale crime and the arrest and prosecution of those responsible.

Mr. Mates: The advance of technology is double edged. It makes intercepting old technology easier, but it is much harder to intercept digital technology, which an increasing number of criminals and terrorists use. Any increase in numbers is related not to the ease of interception, which is in many ways more difficult, but to the urgency of the cases. Criminals are now so sophisticated; for example, they use mobile telephones and satellite phones to do their deadly deeds. We must pick them up.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that intervention and I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It poses a problem for


those of us who are committed to accountability and democracy. There is a difficult balance to strike between ensuring that our security services are given the opportunity to detect crime, and maintaining proper civil liberties. I do not have the answer, but the question concerns me as an ordinary Member of Parliament.
In the spirit of my initial remarks to the effect that more information could be made available without endangering national security, I ask the Home Secretary whether more information could be provided on interceptions for which warrants have been granted. We are given information about the number of warrants, but not about the number of individuals or telephone lines that may be subject to interception. That extra information would not endanger national security, and it might help Members of Parliament and others to build up a picture of the activities of the security services. Could the provision of such information, which is not person-specific, be considered as part of the Government's review of the need to make the security services more accountable to Parliament and to the population generally?
Especially in the light of the increasing number of warrants that are being issued, or for which permission has been granted, I am worried about the level of authorisation required for the issuing of such warrants, and in particular, the powers that are winding their way through Parliament under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. When a body or person wishes to interfere with the liberty or privacy of another person, it is important for there to be some external check on the process; otherwise there is surely potential for corruption.
Hitherto, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have signed warrants. That is entirely right. The Home Secretary has assured me in written parliamentary answers that he takes the matter very seriously and has considered it properly before doing so, and I am sure that that is true. However, I am worried about what may happen if senior officials have, in some respects, authority that has previously been exercised by elected Members. I understand that that may happen under the Bill. As the Home Secretary probably knows, my party has proposed a greater use of circuit judges rather than a reliance on senior officials.

Mr. Straw: I can entirely refute the possibility, or even the idea, that in the context of the legal regime senior officials will act corruptly, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I see no prospect of that. The senior officials who deal with warrants do so with the utmost integrity. They, too, scrutinise applications with enormous care. The circumstances in which a senior official, rather than the Secretary of State, could authorise a warrant are significant, and can be circumscribed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Principally, they will arise only when a Secretary of State has already made a decision to intercept in respect of that target.

Mr. Baker: Let me make it clear that I have no evidence of any corruption on the part of any official. I do not impugn any official, nor have I any reason to do so. I am making the entirely philosophical point that if an organisation is controlling and monitoring itself, there is a potential for something to go wrong. I am always interested in any aspect of our work here involving

intrusion on someone's liberty or privacy, and I feel that there is a good reason for there to be an external check. That is the only point that I am making, but it was helpful to hear the Home Secretary's comments.
I am worried about the fact that, on occasion, information that conveys details about an individual, perhaps to a large degree, is not even subject to the warrant-seeking process. I understand that it is possible for information to be gleaned about telephone calls made by an individual without any requirement for warrants—for example, information about the number of calls made, the telephone numbers to which they are made, and how long the calls last. Such information can build up a picture of an individual's activities, even if the words spoken are not recorded. I understand that the same will shortly be possible with e-mails and other electronic communication; it will be possible to establish the sites visited, for how long they have been visited, and so on.
As I am not a member of the Committee, I hope that Ministers will allow me to raise the issue of the Government's policy on interceptions or monitoring of Members of Parliament—elected Members. This is really a constitutional issue. On 30 October 1997, a parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is no longer present, confirmed that the Government's policy on the interception of Members' communications was as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Nothing had changed. The answer was that no interception would take place.
I ask, in a genuine spirit of seeking information from the Government, how that squares with the various reports that appear to point in the contrary direction—reports that have appeared intermittently, almost regularly, in our national newspapers, often in respected national newspapers.
The Sunday Times of 15 November 1998 said that, allegedly, MI5 warned the Prime Minister about the activities of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Guardian reported in a front-page story on 22 October 1998:
Potential cabinet Ministers and other members of the Government were vetted by MI5 at the last two general elections, it was officially admitted yesterday.
The names of individuals who the intelligence agency considers security risks were passed to the Prime Minister.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Quite right, too.

Mr. Baker: Perhaps it is quite right. I am not making the point that that should never occur. The point that I am making is that it appears to be inconsistent with the information given in parliamentary written answers.

Mr. Mates: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but it is important that we get this right. Vetting means positively looking at someone's security classification. The loose terminology of the newspaper simply means that the Security Service—probably the head of the Security Service—reported to the Prime Minister on any Members upon whom it had information of anything untoward. That does not mean that the Member's communications had been interfered with. It means that the Member had come to the notice of the Security Service. That is quite a different matter from vetting.

Mr. Baker: I understand that point entirely, but I was making a wider point. An article in The Mirror alleged—


I have no evidence for this; I quote just because of a desire for knowledge—that MI5 phone taps and checks were ordered on a particular Member of Parliament who was branded a blackmail risk.
I do not know whether that occurs or not, but it would be helpful to know to what extent there is interception of any communications, surveillance, vetting or anything else involving Members. What general rules apply? What parameters apply in those respects? That is the question that I am asking the Foreign Secretary to address in his winding-up speech. What are the parameters and limits to which gathering information about Members of Parliament can extend? I ask no more than that.
Also on accountability, another area in which there could be greater openness is the finances of the security services. On 15 December 1998, I asked the Prime Minister to publish the National Audit Office report into the new headquarters for MI5 and MI6, a matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to earlier. The answer from the Prime Minister was that disclosure would harm national security or defence.
That is contrary to paragraph 43 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which states:
We were surprised that the reports had not been previously published, and the Committee believe that these NAO reports should be published. We believe that publication would not in any way prejudice national security or compromise commercial confidentialities.
That is a conclusion with which I entirely agree. This is not about national security; it is about value for money and proper use of public funds—that is all. Whether there is a roof garden, or trees costing three times as much as they should, is not a matter of national security. It is a matter simply of whether the bill has been paid properly and whether there is proper accountability for funds.
The record shows that the budget for those buildings was about three and a half times overspent. Had there been more involvement and more openness about those issues, and perhaps more involvement by the Intelligence and Security Committee, that might not have happened. Further to that, what steps are being taken, and how open are the Government being in ensuring that the GCHQ building does not fall into the same trap as Thames house and Vauxhall cross?
As for openness about finances, I fail to see why the Government insist that they cannot publish a separate budget head for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. There is a separate budget head for MI5; it is in some of the booklets. It may look as if it is a secret, but it is in there somewhere. It is also included in the single intelligence vote.
What on earth is wrong with our knowing the total amount spent on MI6 or GCHQ, and even perhaps, without endangering national security, some sort of crude breakdown within that figure? In my view, the attitude is a throwback to the era of obsessive secrecy which should be over. I hope that the Government will look again at that in the months ahead.
I am not asking for radical change. I am grateful, in so far as I am aware of it, for the work that the security services do to protect us all. I am also grateful for the work of the Security and Intelligence Committee on behalf of parliamentarians, in so far as I can ascertain what it does from its reports and elsewhere, and I have confidence in its work. I believe that it has shown that it

can deal with security matters in a responsible way, and that Parliament and the security services can be more open about the work that they undertake without in any way endangering national security.
That may require a Select Committee, as hon. Members have argued this afternoon, or it may require rejigging the existing Committee. It will certainly involve more access to information from the Committee and more openness about advice to Ministers and the availability of such advice to members of the Committee. This is a relatively modest shopping list, but I hope that it is a sensible one and that the Government will respond accordingly when the Foreign Secretary replies to the debate.

Mr. Francis Maude: As one would expect, we have had a very good debate. It has been serious, thoughtful, well-informed and devoid of the spirit of partisanship that sometimes prevails in this place. I have been in the Chamber for most of the debate, and much of it has been not so much about the exercise of the accountability which these relatively new arrangements still amount to, but about how we might extend that accountability. I shall say a little about that, but it is proper that at this stage we should devote our attention to exercising accountability rather than seeking constantly to extend it.
All the speeches have been well informed and serious and the House will have appreciated that. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke with sanity and in a considered way. Let me also say that we all felt deeply for him in his recent sadness. We are very glad to have him here and to hear his sane voice.
I should also mention the speech by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am sorry that he is not in his place, but he has been here throughout nearly all the debate. He spoke of this being his last opportunity to speak in a debate on this topic, which suggests that he may know rather more about the date of the election than the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Straw: Some time before May 2002.

Mr. Maude: I am grateful to have confirmation that the constitutional arrangements remain unchanged.
The hon. Member for Workington has been a remarkable parliamentarian—although not always a comfortable one from the point of view of those of us who served as Ministers under the previous Administration, or even current Ministers. However, as we undertake our task of holding the Executive to account, being comfortable is not always what we seek. We seek high principle, dedication, public service and acuity. The hon. Gentleman has all those qualities and I am glad to pay tribute to him. It is clear from the speeches of Committee members that there is an extraordinary degree of cohesion and friendship among them, which is important to the Committee's work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who speaks with such authority on the subject, has undertaken a remarkable and important task as the Committee's first Chairman. It is one of unusual delicacy and sensitivity, in creating what must be almost by definition a unique form of scrutiny—something


accepted even by those who argue for change. Trust in the way in which that form of scrutiny and accountability operates is of the utmost importance. The personal authority, high integrity, wide experience and judgment that my right hon. Friend brings to leading that process—together with his ability to command real respect from all parts of the House—is crucial. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has discharged an important and serious task.
There was a fascinating and somewhat theological discussion about whether the current arrangements should be changed, and the Committee transmute over time to some form of Select Committee. Everyone agrees that the current arrangements work extraordinarily well for something that is so new in—this cannot be repeated too often—an area of great delicacy and sensitivity. As the procedures continue to bed in, it is important that the public, the House and those within the agencies have confidence in their operation. I strongly support the view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and others that we should not consider a Select Committee structure. The existing system is good and we should concentrate on making it work well in exercising the accountability that comes with it rather than seeking, at this stage, to extend it.
The extraordinary process since the late 1980s of bringing the security and intelligence agencies, with their lack of public recognition, out of the darkness has been important in reassuring people of the essentially benign role that those agencies play. Creatures that exist totally in the dark can easily excite disproportionate fear and anxiety. Of course it is right for us to be vigilant about the agencies' role but we should exercise such vigilance against the background of our understanding that the agencies exist and operate as the servants of liberty, not its enemy.
Even before the existing arrangement, all the agencies were accountable to Ministers who were themselves democratically accountable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) made an interesting suggestion about changing part of that accountability in future, which I am sure we will want to think about carefully. However, we should never forget that the security and intelligence agencies have always operated within some framework of accountability—albeit more limited than that which operates today.
All who have contributed to the debate have spoken about the work of the agencies themselves, and I endorse all that has been said, especially about the work of the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, which are the agencies that fall within the portfolio that I shadow. We should recognise that the excellence of the SIS's work, and the height of its reputation, is not least among that unique set of international assets which gives Britain global reach and which should give Britain disproportionate influence in the world. I remember from my own close contact with the SIS, when I was a Foreign Office Minister 10 years ago, that we were not allowed to call it the SIS—we had to refer to it in a dark and mysterious way as "the friends across the river." That contact gave me a profound admiration for the men and women who comprise the service, and who demonstrate

dedication, public service, resourcefulness and—as many hon. Members have pointed out today—simple, raw courage.
Part of what those agencies provide for this country is the ability to help other friendly countries with intelligence input that they would otherwise lack. That gives this country greater influence which other, comparable countries simply do not have. To achieve that, the agencies need proper resources and commitment to their capability. They need continuity, which is crucial: after all, they operate in a world that is not notably safer since the end of the cold war. The cold war, born, as it was, out of oppression and totalitarianism, provided a dreadful stability for the most awful of reasons, and it is unequivocally good news that that has ended. However, it has not led to the world becoming more stable. It is, if anything, less stable and predictable, and more turbulent. The new world today holds greater opportunities for prosperity and peace, but there are myriad threats and risks.
A peace dividend has not been available in the sphere of intelligence, and rightly so. The big reduction in the need for intelligence in relation to the former Soviet Union has more than been taken up by the need to counter threats that are more immediate to civil society. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) talked about the need to counter organised crime, especially drug trafficking and illegal immigration—which has had dreadful effects, as we have seen this week. That is a crucial area of activity and it is right that a greater part of the resources of the agencies should be devoted to activities to counter proliferation and terrorism, and action to disrupt and investigate international crime.
The Mitrokhin affair has rightly been the subject of much discussion in this debate. I take this opportunity to applaud the work of the agencies in that case, especially that of the SIS. It is always the case that it is the things that go wrong that get the publicity and attention, but much goes right that is unapplauded. In the Mitrokhin case, however, we were able to see what was, by any standard, a remarkable piece of intelligence work with a huge dividend for this country and for our allies. I place on record the plaudits of the Opposition for the work that was done.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentioned that we should give credit not only to the agencies: much of the credit must go to Mr. Mitrokhin himself, who was extraordinarily brave in standing up for what he believed. He performed a great service for his country and our country, and for humanity generally.
The Committee has made some sensible and moderate recommendations. Of course there were faults in the subsequent handling of the Mitrokhin operation, and they have been highlighted, but it would be a shame if they were to mar an otherwise exemplary operation. I do not want to harp on about the failures, although it is clear that some were serious. Views may differ about whether Mrs. Norwood should have been brought to book for her betrayal, but it is unsatisfactory that, in effect, the decision was taken by default.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke also about the effect of the current proposals for European security and defence


identity in respect of intelligence operations. I shall introduce a minor point of partisan difference at this point, although I see that that upsets the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
European defence will require intelligence sharing, yet there are clear differences of allegiance. It did not need the apparent leak by French intelligence officers of target details during the Kosovo operation to show that. It would be useful if the Foreign Secretary would explain how he expects liaison within the European Union defence framework to work.
The natural and important links between Britain and the Echelon group are based on a long period of continuity and trust and exist for the purpose of sharing intelligence. Is there not a risk that those links would be endangered by an arrangement that would necessarily involve sharing intelligence with countries that have different perspectives and aims?
From my own experience, I know that foreign policy decisions are coloured by intelligence information. It is hard to see how there can be a complete common foreign and security policy without complete intelligence sharing. That is even more true of military operations, which depend crucially on intelligence.
In that context, it was disturbing to read an article in this month's edition of Prospect magazine. Written by a French official, it argues that the British would not be able to play a leading role in the EU unless they jettisoned their special intelligence links with the United States. The official states:
Britain must choose Europe or betray it.
That is an unsatisfactory thing to read.

Mr. MacShane: What is his name?

Mr. Maude: He is unnamed, for perfectly understandable reasons. It would have been very odd if he had been named. It is disturbing that such sentiments can be uttered for publication, and it bears out the sort of concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe.

Mr. Howard: Is it not astonishing that Labour Members should demand the name of the source of that remark? It is entirely consistent with named, sourced and published emanations in recent weeks from the highest elements in the French Government.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, and the concern about the matter is real. No one is saying that under no circumstances can these potential conflicts be resolved, but we know that intelligence sharing is founded on continuity, trust and mutual confidence, which can be built up only through a long period of co-operation.
The Government are engaged in a frogmarch towards the European security and defence identity, and the Foreign Secretary must tell the House whether there is any risk that that might endanger intelligence sharing through the Echelon group, which is a crucial element of our intelligence capability. If the intelligence-sharing that we enjoy were lost, we would suffer by denying ourselves access to the product of others' intelligence capabilities.
On the question of trust and confidence, I want to say a word about Dame Stella Rimington and her famous book, which is being considered by Government officials. I 
suspect that I am not alone in believing that one of the obligations that members of all agencies accept is a self-denying ordinance on writing about the work of the agencies. That is not some quaint, old-fashioned relic of the dark days of absolute secrecy—I believe it to be crucial for operational effectiveness.
As I said earlier, trust is essential at all levels. It is especially essential between agents in the field and the service that they help. The Secret Intelligence Service, in particular, has been extraordinarily successful in creating that sense of complete trustworthiness. After all, it often asks people to place themselves in positions of extreme risk for what they believe in. Such people may be at high risk for many years afterwards. People need to be confident that events will not be written about in such a way that might enable them to be identified subsequently, however well disguised in the writing they may be, by detective work carried out by journalists and others. After all, Mrs. Norwood was publicly identified by a journalist carrying out just such detective work.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is there not another particularly objectionable aspect to this? What makes the sale of memoirs about MI5 and MI6 so lucrative are the risks run by the agents, who often receive very little financial reward. What does it look like to them to see the desk warriors, who do not run any significant risks, getting £1 million for a book?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. From everything that I have heard, seen and read, it is hard to over-state the distress and outrage that is felt about this by people in all the agencies. I take this opportunity to say to Ministers that we believe that it is quite wrong that Dame Stella should seek to publish such a book. The Government would have our wholehearted support in preventing such publication.

Mr. Winnick: It may well be wrong for Stella Rimington to publish the book. Presumably a lot will be deleted. However, I should like to get this quite clear. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should prevent the publication of the book, even if they have the powers to do so? I hope not.

Mr. Maude: Yes, I think that the Government should prevent its publication. It has been argued that it would be perfectly appropriate for Dame Stella to publish memories of her early childhood and a study of the psychological stress involved such an operation. That would be interesting and probably uncontroversial. However, to write about the service that she has led would be quite wrong. She should make the honourable decision not to pursue the book's publication, but if she persists in seeking to write about her life in the service, the Government should prevent the book's publication. They would certainly have our support in doing so, and I hope that they would have the support of the whole House.
I want to say a word about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is in another place. It is mentioned in the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, and it is important in this context, because of a clear conflict of objectives. Perhaps the Government have done their best to reconcile those objectives, but we believe that they have not yet successfully done so.
The emergence and startling growth of new media require some ability for the authorities to have specific access to communications for limited and specific purposes, but two conflicting public goods are at risk here. The first is a general entitlement; we are all entitled to feel that we should have privacy for our communications. The second is a matter of wider importance: the Government's own declared objective, which we strongly support, of making the United Kingdom the prime centre for e-commerce and network development.
I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am a director of a start-up internet company. I am aware of the real concern within the sector about the effect of the perceptions of the Bill. There is massive concern about the effect of the Bill on the sector's development and on the prospects for the UK of becoming a serious base for this kind of business. It is, after all, a very mobile business, able to relocate in other parts of the world literally within hours.
Plenty has been said about the effects. The London Investment Banking Association said recently:
the legislation also needs to avoid casting doubt on the efficacy of encryption as a means of legitimately protecting the confidentiality of commercial information.
It believes that the Bill does not currently provide that reassurance. The Director of Cyber-Rights and CyberLiberties (UK) describes the Bill in its current form as
creating an intimidating environment for the legitimate use of encryption products by UK citizens.
He says:
Such legislation would no longer be compatible with the Government's policy to make Britain the best place for e-commerce and network development.
Those are serious concerns.
We understand the countervailing objective for the agencies to have the ability to intercept communications. No one contests that that is a desirable end and that a serious public good is served by it. It was mildly frustrating when looking for details of what the agencies said about it to find in the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, in the section on commercial encryption,
GCHQ stated in their evidence that
followed by five lines of asterisks;
The Security Service told us that
followed by three lines of asterisks; and
The SIS stated
followed by four lines of asterisks. That was not very illuminating. One understands why it appeared in that way, but it did not help the argument very much.
One of the problems is that the UK is the first country to proceed down this path. There is some credit in trying to be first, but we should not always seek to match every development in technology, in the market and in communications with equivalent regulation. Such legislation can look, and can even be, unreasonably draconian. It can prove simply inappropriate in view of the rapid development of such media. Therefore, I take this opportunity to ask the Government to look again at how the legislation will work and to introduce some serious amendments to it.
In conclusion, I should like again to pay tribute to all those in the agencies for the work that they do. The country owes them a big debt of gratitude for their dedication, service, knowledge, resourcefulness and courage. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Committee for the way in which they have embraced the important, serious, high task of bringing accountability—of bringing into the light an area that has always remained largely in the dark—and for giving reassurance to the public that these are agencies that serve the cause of liberty and are not its enemies.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The debate has had a select attendance, but in my quarter century as a Member of Parliament, I have rarely attended a debate so well informed and so serious in tackling the issues before the House. I have also rarely attended a debate in which the addressing of serious issues has been so little diverted by party points. All hon. Members who have spoken today may take some pride in having demonstrated the Chamber's role of scrutiny in a responsible and non-partisan manner.
The tone for the debate, and for the annual report before us, owes a great deal to the diligence and character of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). His deep experience of government has admirably equipped him for the role of Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I wish him well on his forthcoming retirement; he will leave a gap that the House will be challenged to fill.
The right hon. Gentleman took proper pride in the high attendance at the ISC. As a regular witness there, I can testify to the unusually high attendance, and, following my recent visit, to its unusual unity, at a level not often found in Select Committees. He was right to point out that the Committee's work is shared by all its members, and many of those who have spoken today may take pleasure in their contribution to it.
I may be able to help the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on their point about regulations for special employment tribunals for members of the agencies. I am advised by my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry that they intend to consult the ISC next month on draft regulations, and I hope that that will enable us to make progress. I cannot promise that all my responses today will be so expeditious or so welcome.
The right hon. Members for Bridgwater and for Horsham (Mr. Maude) raised the subject of the proposed memoirs of Stella Rimington. The text has been submitted to the agencies for scrutiny and Stella Rimington has agreed that nothing should be published that would undermine national security. She has not yet submitted the text to a publisher, so there is time for her to reflect on whether it would be right to do so. I am sure that she will wish to bear in mind the comments made here today as she comes to a judgment on whether to proceed.

Mr. Winnick: On the basis that nothing should be published that will undermine national security, and if Stella Rimington decides to go ahead with publication, will the Government take no action to stop her?

Mr. Cook: I cannot say anything as definitive as my hon. Friend advises me to. Discussions continue and it


would not necessarily be helpful if we took too clear a view. While the book may contain nothing that would directly compromise national security, I detect from many of the speeches today that Members would wish Stella Rimington to reflect on the example that she would set and on whether it would be wise to proceed.
Rare partisan points were made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Horsham, who both managed to introduce Europe. Given how high Europe ranks in Conservative thinking, we should probably be grateful that it did not play a more prominent part in the debate. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman pressed me on the matter, I can say that we agreed, only this week at the Feira European Council, to four working groups with NATO to consider the interface between the European security and defence policy and NATO. Intelligence is obviously part of that interface, and I can think of no one better to oversee the work than Javier Solana, until recently the Secretary General of NATO and now overseeing European security as the High Representative of the European Council.
I will not undertake to see nothing in the proposals. Nor would we agree to anything that would put at risk our special relationship in intelligence with the United States. I do not entirely follow the logic of those who are concerned that we will not be able, because we are entering into a security arrangement with several of the countries of Europe, to continue with our special relationship on intelligence. We have maintained that relationship for 50 years with exactly the same countries as members of NATO.
Nor am I particularly impressed by threats from an anonymous French man that the security initiative would compromise Britain's national intelligence gathering; I am absolutely confident that the French have not the slightest intention of allowing it to compromise their own national intelligence gathering. I do not, therefore, feel an active threat from that quarter.

Mr. Howard: Is not the Foreign Secretary missing the point? I referred to the quotation from the French Minister for Europe in which he made it perfectly plain that he wanted to see Europe as a rival to the USA—there are those who regard that as an honourable and legitimate objective. If that is the type of Europe that is being envisaged by at least some of those who are behind the initiative, is it not inevitable that the Americans will have concerns about continuing to share their intelligence with those who want to set up a rival to them in the world?

Mr. Cook: The United States shares intelligence with us as members of an alliance that includes France. As to US anxiety, I can only refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the comments made by the President of the USA in Germany earlier this month. Referring to European security, he said:
There is no contradiction between a strong Europe and a strong transatlantic relationship.
It is not incumbent on Opposition Members to try to be more pro-American than the American President.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) inquired as to whether security had been compromised by the disappearance of the laptops in the ownership of the agencies. I advise the House that

we are confident that security has not been compromised. Nevertheless, it is plainly vital that we address that important security aspect. I welcome the fact that the ISC investigator is carrying out a review of the matter. We look forward to the report and will ensure that any conclusions or findings of the Committee are fully fed into our response to those events.
That matter underlines the fact that the ISC does not act as a means of scrutiny only on behalf of Parliament. The Committee is a valuable partner for the Government in ensuring that we maintain proper accountability and rigour over the security agencies.
It is in exactly that spirit that the ISC undertook the Mitrokhin study; we are grateful to it for having done so. The members of the Committee addressed that duty with diligence, conscientiousness and discretion. Their report is welcome, as the debate has demonstrated, because it restores a sense of balance to the Mitrokhin issue. Mistakes were made under both Administrations, but it is important that we apply ourselves to the lessons that should be learned for the future.
As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater pointed out, the great value of the report is that it underscored what a major achievement it was for SIS to get Mr. Mitrokhin out of Russia with his information. It was an outstanding piece of intelligence work, as the Committee recorded. It provided more leads for counter-espionage work than any other counter-espionage operation. We owe a major debt to the agencies for having made that possible and to the immense courage of Mr. Mitrokhin during the long years when he accumulated the information that has been of such value to those of us who want to expose the threat to our values and our societies.
I agree with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) at least in that we cannot learn the lessons of the past if we do not know the facts of the past. In that, Mr. Mitrokhin has been of extreme value to us. The hon. Gentleman referred to a long list of issues on which we had had to wait for too long to find the truth. I add to that list the fact that we had to wait until last year to discover that the Zinoviev letter was a forgery. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for having prompted us to undertake that project so as to put those facts into the public domain.

Mr. Straw: It was too late for the 1924 general election.

Mr. Cook: Indeed. Nevertheless, it is important that the matter be put in the public arena. I can give an undertaking to the House that, wherever it is safe to do so, we shall share historical facts that the public are entitled to know and that we should have no fear of sharing with them.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewes is not a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Given the volume of parliamentary questions that he tables on the topic, he qualifies at least for associate membership of the Committee. He made several detailed proposals for enhanced scrutiny. However, in the 30 minutes since he sat down, it has not been possible for the Government to take a collective view on them. We will, of course, reflect on those interesting ideas as we expand the operation of scrutiny and make sure that we maintain the oversight of the work of the agencies.
I now come to a central theme of the debate which was picked up, in particular, by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). That is the wide-ranging oversight that we now have over all the agencies. I referred earlier to the fact that I have been a Member of the House for a quarter of a century. When in the 1970s I started an annual Adjournment debate on the activities of special branch, it was seen as a rather daring innovation in accountability.
At that time in the 1970s, if anybody had suggested that we would have a six or seven-hour debate in prime time on the work of the three agencies on the basis of a report conducted by Members of the House, who had interviewed and taken evidence from all the agencies, he would have been regarded as an unrealistic visionary or perhaps, even worse, as a subversive who should attract the attention of the hon. Member for New Forest, East. On that point, I carry the hon. Gentleman with me.
The change has been of value and importance not only to Parliament in improving our ability to carry out scrutiny, but to the agencies, many of which have widely welcomed the progress that has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done sterling service on these issues as a member of the ISC and as a Member of the House. I agree with his observation that the new generation at the top of the agencies take a more open approach than was possible or encouraged during the cold war. This new generation regards accountability as an asset to an agency, not as an irritation.
I firmly believe that the discussion that the heads of the agencies and others within the agencies have had with senior Members of the House and the Committee and the debates that we have had in the House on the Committee's report have all been of great assistance in ensuring that the priorities and objectives of the agencies reflect the concerns of elected Members of Parliament. They also mean that there is a broader consensus on the national interests and the risks that the agencies should focus on to protect those interests.
There is one dramatic measure of how far forward we have moved over the past 20 years in involving the agencies in the public debate. It took place yesterday when all three agencies appeared before the human rights taskforce of the Home Office. It brings together non-governmental organisations active in human rights, which are able to discuss between them how the agencies will shape their operations and their methods to make sure that they are entirely compatible with the European convention on human rights, which we are importing into British law. Such an encounter would have been unimaginable two decades ago, but it is entirely healthy and valuable for both sides of the debate.
It is right that Parliament and the public should have the opportunity to hold all public institutions to account and the security agencies should be no exception. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are accountable to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the public for the actions of the agencies. We are responsible for ensuring that they act in accordance with the law, and we take those duties seriously. As Secretary of State, I have the right to know what is done under my authority and I am responsible for scrutinising applications and for

signing warrants. My right hon. Friend and I are also responsible for ensuring that the agencies have the resources that they need to carry out their important work. We are both accountable to Parliament.
There are robust processes for ensuring that we are both kept informed about important things that we need to know or which we may need to know for future. I have bilateral meetings with the chief of the SIS and with Francis Richards, the director of GCHQ. I have officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dedicated solely to the job of understanding what the agencies are doing and guiding them on our policy.

Dr. Godman: Along those lines, I have a question about the Government response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to confirm that which is stated in paragraphs 21 and 22 on page 3 of that response, that the modernisation of arrangements for liaison with the intelligence services and the handling of intelligence has been carried out, and that he is satisfied with the new arrangements? He promised modernisation and updating of procedures; has the programme been completed?

Mr. Cook: I would not say that the programme has been completed, the matter is one that requires constant updating and review, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have made major changes in those procedures and in the structure of the Foreign Office to ensure that we are better able to liaise with the agencies, oversee their work and ensure that the appropriate intelligence is properly handled and disseminated. I would not say that there is nothing further to be done—indeed, I would be open to criticism were I to do so—but I can say that I am robustly confident that we have made a big improvement on the situation of two years ago.
As a further safeguard to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and me, our actions are subject to independent scrutiny, not only by Parliament, but by the commissioners set up by the Acts. Each officer of each agency has a duty under the law to provide those commissioners with the information that they need to do their job. To sum up: the heads of the agencies are accountable to my right hon. Friend and me, we are accountable to Parliament and, as the Secretaries of State concerned, we have to come to the Chamber today to account for the actions of the three agencies and to confirm that they have acted within the law and will continue to do so.
Before I turn to the two agencies that are specifically accountable to me and for which I have to account to Parliament, I should enter one word of balance. It is important that we make sure that oversight by Parliament and accountability to Parliament works well and openly. However, I am sure that the members of the ISC will agree that it is equally important that we preserve the secrecy of the agencies' operation. Good human intelligence depends on individuals around the world who are prepared to trust the ability of the SIS to protect their identity; protecting those identities means protecting their livelihoods and, often, their lives. Protecting the scale of GCHQ's capability is also important to ensuring that it is able to carry out its work of interception. All intelligence collection needs the protection of secrecy for its methods if it is to remain effective.
I am responsible for two agencies: GCHQ and the SIS. Before talking about them, I should like to stress that the work of both is of greatest value when seen together. The collection of signals intelligence and of human intelligence often bears its greatest fruit and best results when the two are put together. Both agencies deserve credit for their achievements in matters of profound importance to the safety and security of the nation.
Let me give two examples. Together, the agencies can ring the alarms on attempts to acquire the technology of weapons of mass destruction. That used to be of concern only in connection with nuclear technology, but it is now of concern also in relation to biological and chemical weapons, which can be acquired more cheaply and with a lower technical threshold. The information that the agencies collect gives us as a Government the opportunity to attempt to persuade those who are developing such programmes of the real cost to them of pursuing a capability in weapons of mass destruction, and of the benefits of abandoning that ambition. The agencies also keep a close watch on the readiness of some countries or individuals within them to sell the technology for weapons of mass destruction. That, in turn, enables us to try to influence the countries in which such individuals may reside about the importance of adhering to the non-proliferation regimes.
The other example that I will share with the House is the agencies' work on narcotics and illegal drugs, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe referred. I entirely endorse his observation about the value of their work in that field. In the fight against drugs, the provision of intelligence to law enforcement agencies, not only in the UK but in a range of other countries, is vital to disrupting drug trafficking—a pernicious trade that continues to destroy the lives of people here in the UK. Action by the UK security and intelligence agencies has made a real contribution to our anti-drugs strategy and to achieving the aim of stifling the supply of drugs to our streets.
In my time as Foreign Secretary, I have attended a number of international meetings at which we have had a wholly sterile debate as to whether the prime objective should be to reduce the demand for drugs in the countries that consume them, or to reduce the supply of drugs from the countries that produce them. That is a pointless debate—we need to do both. The work of SIS and GCHQ is immensely valuable to us in making sure that we can disrupt and deter the drugs trade along points in the chain before it reaches the United Kingdom.
GCHQ carries out activities that meet all three of the functions set out in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. It provides assistance on national security, serious crime and economic well-being. In the recent past, it has produced intelligence to help to safeguard the security of British troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. It assists the law enforcement agencies in the war against organised crime.
GCHQ also defends our economic well-being against modern, and more unconventional, threats. Britain's essential infrastructure, such as water, power and transport services, is increasingly managed by information technology. A computer-based attack on those services could cripple the nation just as effectively as a military attack. GCHQ's information security specialists help the Government and industry to protect themselves from vulnerability to such attacks.
Of course, GCHQ now faces a very wide range of technical challenges that are increasing with every passing year. Chief among those is the growth and rate of change in global telecommunications and the spread of the internet, which is changing the way in which so many organisations communicate. A second challenge is the growth of global telephone systems. Organised crime can now operate on the basis of buying a phone in one country, using it in a second country to call a third, and paying, or failing to pay, the bill in a fourth. Keeping up with the globalisation of communications technology requires commitment and a deep understanding of complex technical issues.
A third challenge to GCHQ is the growth of encryption, which can be a valuable safeguard for honest people doing honest business over the net. However, it can also be a potent weapon in the hands of those who wish to avoid their legal obligations. I listened with respect to what the right hon. Member for Horsham said on that matter. He would not expect me to say what lay behind the asterisks in the report, and members of the Committee, having struck those words out of their report, would be rather astonished if I did.
I can sum up the expression of all three agencies by saying that they all firmly support the work that the Government are doing on that matter. We have to make a choice here, even if it is a difficult one. We cannot ask the agencies to be more effective on serious crime, drug trafficking and the traffic in human beings if we do not listen to them when they tell us their technical and legal requirements for continuing to do that work.
If GCHQ is to keep pace with technical change, it needs the building and the equipment to do so. That is why we have begun the new accommodation programme for GCHQ to provide it with the facilities that it needs to guarantee its capability well into the future. I congratulate the current director, Francis Richards, who has quickly come to terms with that immense project. He is motivating the staff through the process of change and has quickly and honestly squared up to early problems.
GCHQ's new accommodation is to be purpose built for the modern IT environment and will provide the basis on which GCHQ can handle large quantities of complex information quickly and intelligently. It is our responsibility to ensure that GCHQ stays a jump ahead of the field, and the new programme will give it the ability to do that. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater wisely said that the scale and complexity of the project is almost unrivalled: it is not only a building, but the relocation of probably the most complex IT operation in Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are taking steps to improve the management of that programme, but I agree with him and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on the importance of monitoring the project's development. I can therefore inform the House that I have asked for regular reports on the progress of the programme, the development of its management, the containment of the costs and the avoidance of unacceptable disruption of service to the clients.
I stress that the SIS makes a valuable contribution through human intelligence to all those objectives—against proliferation, the drugs trade and terrorism. I echo what has been said by a number of hon. Members about the courage of those who work in the field. By definition, working to tackle the drugs trade or proliferation or


terrorism means operating in countries that can be unstable and can present dangers to everybody—including, of course, those who work there on behalf of our intelligence services. The whole House will want to support the commitment and the courage that they show in performing services of great value to the nation and also to us, as the Government and the representatives of the people.
I want to highlight another two aspects of the SIS. First, there are areas of the world where British interests are engaged and where the relationships of power are, to put it kindly, not always transparent. The SIS provides a unique perspective on key regional and national developments in those areas. At its best, SIS intelligence from human sources can and does forewarn the Government of when things will go wrong and contributes to our options for steering them in the right direction. Secondly, SIS deployment worldwide provides unique added value when local flashpoints arise and a surge of diplomatic and sometimes military effort is needed.
I echo a point made by a number of hon. Members. Sometimes we are hampered in getting the value of the agencies across to the public because we cannot talk about their successes. Those successes can be spectacular. I want to try to put that right by sharing with the House a recent SIS success. Hon. Members will know that I have recently visited Sierra Leone, where we have seen a recurrence of an appalling civil war with grave civilian casualties. In relation to that, I want to put on record the great success that we have had in obtaining intelligence, particularly through the SIS. I can tell the House that the intelligence agencies have successfully shown the degree of Liberian involvement in the conflict in Sierra Leone and the contacts with the rebels in Sierra Leone.
At last week's General Affairs Council in Brussels, I was able to use that intelligence through the Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—to convince our European partners that we should take a tougher line with Liberia. As a result, they agreed to step up pressure on the Government of Liberia and to be willing to use our own aid as a lever on them. We would not have been able to do that without good-quality intelligence and the effort of those in the field who provided it. In that way, the agencies contributed to our promotion of democracy and human rights in Africa. They helped to secure our aim of stability

in the region and thereby protected our national interest. That is a good example of a success story achieved by the agencies and how good intelligence used by the policy makers can make a real difference.
Most of those present throughout the debate have been members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. For those who are not members of it, I would commend the foreword to the annual report as an excellent summary of why we need the agencies in an unstable and dangerous world. The growth of heroin in central Asia is a threat to security on the streets of Britain. Terrorist bombings in east Africa can be a threat to our trade and to our citizens in east Africa. Efforts to acquire chemical and biological weapons anywhere in the middle east can be a threat to our own people. Our dependence on information technology is vulnerable to being disrupted by any point around the globe with access to global communications.
I entirely echo the conclusion of the foreword that our safety depends on good intelligence. I congratulate the ISC on having provided us with a sound basis for the debate. I believe that the debate has established both the value of our intelligence and security agencies, and at the same time has demonstrated the health of their accountability to Parliament.

Mr. Greg Pope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That

(1) the matter of devolution in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 5th July at 10.30 a.m., when it shall take questions for oral answer and shall then consider the matter of devolution in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1);
(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of Standing Committees), at that meeting the Chairman shall interrupt the proceedings under paragraph (2) at half-past One o'clock; and
(4) at the conclusion of the proceedings under paragraph (2), a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Pope.]

Local Authority Housing Revenue

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Tony McWalter: My topic for this evening's Adjournment debate would appear to be as dry as dust and as unappetising as shards of broken glass. It is a subject of which today's issue of The Guardian stated:
It is about as riveting as the Schleswig-Holstein question.
Palmerston said that those who sought to understand it went mad.
My topic specifically is reformed local government finance as it applies to a specific group, that of new towns which are debt free and have a negative housing subsidy. Negative subsidy means that they are in the black, in credit.
Debt-free sounds good, even privileged. However, we should remind ourselves that many of those who sleep on the embankment are debt-free. That does not mean that they have no need of resources.
The fact that the local authority for the area which I represent—it is called Dacorum—is debt-free means that it is being asked, as current policy is drafted, to take savage cuts of no less than 41 per cent. of its budget. The citizens of the area are faced with an unprecedented and catastrophic decline in the quality of service that they have received from their local authority, particularly recently.
I present this topic as a supporter of a Government whom I believe to be one of the best that this country has ever had. There has been a magnificent commitment to tackling educational failure, child poverty, pensioner misery, pain caused by alleviable medical conditions and the scourge of unemployment. The achievements do not quite match the commitment yet because many problems had to be tackled from a base of neglect for decades. However, there is strong evidence that the new Government's initiatives have addressed many of the problems that were left neglected.
I am proud of the Government to whom I commit my support in Parliament. However, I am still independent-minded enough to reflect on where there are sometimes failings, and to ask myself which issues need drastic attention. Local government finance is just such a topic. Over a period when the Government have introduced many special initiatives, and have often asked local government to be a partner in them, there has sometimes been a singular lack of understanding of the reality that local authorities have had their resources stretched to the point at which systems of service delivery are breaking. Yet we know that to be true. If schools have done well under the Government, why are there still threats of library closures? If those who wish to train for jobs have done well under the Government, why is it so difficult to get a decent level of support from council social services departments?
The answer is that when the Government commit themselves to expenditure in one area, they often commit themselves at the same time to a freeze or, at best, a very gradual upturn in another. As they were working from the very low base left to us by the previous Government in the provision of so many services, even a standstill budget will drive some services into the buffers.
The topic of local government finance is not quite as dry as some might think. It affects the quality of people's lives. A woman in my constituency whose mobility is less than it was requires a small ramp at the rear of her house. The council recently stated that no such work could be carried out now, because of uncertainty about continuing funding for the Government. That is the case in service after service.
Faced with a 41 per cent. cut, what funds can the council commit to such cases? A woman needs new bathing arrangements because of her recent disability. The social services may help, but for years that department has been starved of the resources that would allow it to be proactive in the provision of such facilities. Dacorum borough has often helped in similar cases, but now it cannot.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have a specific complaint about the effect of the new system of resource accounting on my constituency. The change to the new system is for the general good, but it needs to be implemented with considerable care in the labyrinth of local government finance.
The local government authority in my area, Dacorum, is an excellent example of its kind. A Labour administration from 1995 introduced a series of measures designed to tackle poverty and to initiate what we would now call a new deal. It pioneered many such beneficial initiatives, including a close relationship with local police, pre-dating the Government, which has resulted in an area of low crime and recent record falls in crime rates.
Dacorum is debt-free. That is one of the reasons why it could be proactive and support so many of the services not taken up by Hertfordshire county council. Voluntary services seem to be making up for many of the deficiencies of a social services system that is stretched to breaking point. One such organisation is the local Council for Voluntary Service, under the inspirational leadership of Mrs. June Street, who was recognised by Her Majesty for the quality of the work that she has done for the people of Dacorum.
If the local authority faced extraordinary resource difficulties, as Hertfordshire did, at least we had a voluntary service system supported by Dacorum borough and free of some of the impediments faced by many borough councils. That made a huge difference to the quality of life of many of the most needy people in my area.
For years, Dacorum has not asked permission from the Government to borrow. Inevitably, its housing stock decreased markedly under the right-to-buy proposals, but it remains strongly the landlord of choice for the many people who cannot afford to buy, even at discounted prices. Rents in the area are 6 per cent. lower than in Stevenage, and if a large-scale voluntary transfer of the stock were proposed, residents of Dacorum would say, "No way!" The council supports a number of housing initiatives outside the housing revenue account, including a women's refuge and a centre that supports those with mental health difficulties.
The net effect of the moves was that Dacorum, through selling houses and the contentious sale of a large playing field, which was technically a housing asset, was able to liberate itself from governmental spending constraints. It was able to use the interest on capital receipts and the receipts themselves to tackle poverty, deprivation, desperation and social malfunction, especially when it was led by a Labour councillor, Julia Coleman,


between 1995–99. In my view, in its use of resources, Dacorum borough council operated as a council should. It does not operate in that way now.
In its finances, the council faces the equivalent of planning blight, even catastrophe. It is tempting to be party political and say that the reason is that, since May 1999, it has been run by a minority Conservative administration. However, that accusation would be unfair. The Government have established a new system of organising local government finance that could be massively prejudiced against Dacorum and significantly damaging to other new towns, including Bracknell, Harlow and Crawley.
What is the origin of the blight, which means that my pensioner constituent will not receive help to get her bath, and that pensioners who enjoy a game of bowls at an economical price will be denied it? What threatens the budgets of dozens of voluntary organisations, which deliver services to the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the homeless, the mentally ill and those who need supported employment? The origin of the misery is that Dacorum has what is called "negative housing subsidy", and assets that exceed its liabilities. That makes it technically debt-free. It has debts, but they are covered by its assets.
Since an Act of Parliament in 1989, Dacorum has not received any borrowing authority to build or improve its houses, which number about 12,000. It had a negative housing subsidy, which it was required by law to put into its general rate fund. That meant that, this year, £8 million "profit" on the council housing budget subsidised general rate activities. In addition, the council is regarded as having what is technically called a mid-year subsidy credit ceiling, which is also negative—about £36 million. That mid-year subsidy credit ceiling, which is negative subsidy, is deemed an asset on which it can make interest.
Negative subsidy is a funny term. The whole system is built around the idea that councils are up to their ears in debt and that they want to borrow. A council that has managed its affairs well, whose policies anticipated many of the Government's policies and which is not in debt and is delivering a high-quality product to its people is somehow deemed an affront to the system. Hence the ridiculous language of negative subsidy. The mid-year subsidy credit ceiling system is deemed to deliver the council interest of £2 million on its assets. The sum is the item 8 credit that appears in the title of the debate on the Order Paper.
The £8 million in the council's general rate fund, which is 41 per cent. of the council's revenue, is threatened because the Government want no transfers from housing funds to the general rates. The straight implication is that Dacorum would have to slash its annual revenue budget by £8 million. Hundreds of local organisations would close their doors for ever. A council that does so much good will, alas, no longer be able to do that.
What did the Minister for Housing have to say about that? On 23 May he said—

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I had temporarily got lost, in terms of the procedure. I hope that the debate will not last too much longer, so that we can get away a bit early.
On 23 May, the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
The majority of respondents agreed that it was right to regard local authority housing as a national programme and that assumed surpluses in authorities' housing accounts should be retained within housing and redistributed through a pooling mechanism.—[Official Report, 23 May 2000; c. 437W.]
It can be said in words of one syllable that £8 million is to be lost by my local authority to authorities that are deemed more needful.
I have little doubt that—to quote Tony—those who say that they will rob Peter to pay Paul will have the support of Paul. In this case, the Pauls are in a strong majority; but it might be sensible to consider the implications for Peter before seizing his assets. So far, the Government have suggested a 10-year phasing in of the change—that is, the removal of the negative housing subsidy of £8 million. I thank the Minister for that, but it still represents a considerable year-on-year reduction. I value the work of my council, and I passionately value the welfare of my constituents. I thank the Minister for what he has done, as far as it goes, but I want a better outcome.
A second line of attack was recently offered by the technical advisory group to the Department. The group notes that for a decade local authorities that have been borrowers have been required to put aside money to cover their debts. That generated a resource that the Government could use for a national housing initiative. Debt-free authorities, however, did not make such provision. They did not put aside money to cover their debts, because they had no debts. They spent capital receipts, as they were fully entitled to do; or they saved them, and ploughed the interest into improving the quality of life of their citizens. That is certainly what Dacorum did. New rules for resource accounting now assume that they did not spend the money, and effectively require such authorities to pass the interest to the Department even if they no longer have the interest-earning capital.
I make the point because it has particular significance for other new towns. They regard this as retrospective legislation with a vengeance. Fortunately for Dacorum and for Hemel Hempstead—the same does not apply to some other new towns—at least Dacorum still has the money. It is still receiving interest, and it could meet the bill. The only misery—in fact, a major series of pieces of misery—that the item 8 transfer could cause would lie in the fact that Dacorum might then have no capital programme. After all, it has money, so it has no need to borrow—but look! It must not spend its money, or it will not be able to make its £2 million deemed interest payments to the Department.
The item 8 transfer would also mean that Dacorum would lose £2 million from its general rate fund, as part of the overall £8 million lost. It would never be able to get a capital programme going, because—this is a crucial point—new towns lack the land assets that older councils have.
Some might think this series of penalties rather steep for a new town that makes its contribution to the £160 million a year that is raised by such towns for


the Treasury through what used to be the Commission for New Towns, and is now English Partnerships. Some might consider such a penalty an absolute injustice to an authority that has made far fewer demands than others on Treasury resources, and that has made no contribution to the public sector borrowing requirement for a decade. Some will say, "If this is what happens when things are managed well, what is the point of managing well?".
The technical advisory group suggested that authorities that are debt-free should be asked not to make item 8 payments from the time of their freedom from debt. Freedom from debt does not mean that there are not major problems—including housing problems, which in my constituency are not covered by the housing revenue account.
In my constituency, the price of houses is too high to be managed on the salary of a teacher or nurse, so we have a brain drain to those parts of the country that have accommodation at more reasonable prices. We need affordable housing, but we will not get it through that other mechanism. We need support for housing, some of which will be outside the housing revenue account. A sensible Government would recognise the contribution by authorities that are not in debt and organise things appropriately.
I saw on the internet last night that Hilary Chipping from the Minister's Department has written to all local authority finance officers. She talked about the item 8 credit and said that the Department would
write to you in October with any proposals for changes.
I am glad that there is a commitment to review item 8 arrangements, but it means that blight continues until October. I urge the Minister to recognise that the issue is more urgent than that. We need action now. Special action for new towns needs to be taken ahead of that universal consultation. I speak for colleagues who are also implicated in this business.
Hilary Chipping said in the letter to chief finance officers:
There will be transitional arrangements.
I am grateful for that, but again, she will write later in the year. In the meantime, the authority is looking at what happens to that £6 million.
What do I want from the debate? First, I want an assurance that the Minister understands the gravity of the situation afflicting Dacorum and other authorities that are in negative housing subsidy. Secondly, I want an assurance that, whatever happens, he will ensure that there will not be a catastrophic cut in the council's budget over whatever period. I need that assurance now, so that rational planning of services can restart. Thirdly, I want him to press for the mid-year subsidy credit ceilings to be set at zero, as his own advisory group has suggested, rather than be deemed negative. That would allow assets to be used for the good of the community that generated them. It would permit a continuing capital programme and set item 8 credits at zero.
I hope that the Minister recognises the passion with which I have dealt with the matter, which looks on the surface rather cold and technical. These are real people; these are my constituents. Dacorum is an excellent council delivering on Labour's agenda for improvement in the quality of life of our citizens. I cannot bear to see it threatened, as it is at the moment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) for setting out the issue so clearly. It is to his credit that he made simple some fairly complex problems. I hope that he will find my response as clear.
I acknowledge the problem and the effect on my hon. Friend's local authority in particular, and on some others. I think that he knows that the Government take the matter seriously. He will recall that I have met two delegations on the issue: one of local authority leaders and one of Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend.
The debate is timely. We are considering the detailed arrangements for the new financial framework for local authority housing next year, and looking closely at the position of negative subsidy authorities. We have already announced that there will be transitional arrangements from April next year to assist them. We shall shortly consult on those proposals.
Perhaps I should say a few words about the system of local authority housing finance and what we will do to improve it. There is general agreement that the present finance system is difficult to understand. It fails to provide the right framework for maintaining a valuable national asset and for taking forward the important changes that we are introducing, which are designed to ensure the best use of housing, best value in the provision of services and more effective tenant participation.
The housing revenue account must change. It will move to a resource accounting basis, making more transparent the cost of capital tied up in assets and providing additional resources to maintain it over the longer term. In due course, subject to Parliament's approving the necessary legislation, we propose that it should once again become a pure landlord account, no longer confusing housing activities with the personal support given to individual tenants through rent rebates.
In tonight's short debate, I shall not explain the intricacies of the existing system or our proposed changes. They can be found in the speech made by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), on 8 February in a debate which I believe that my hon. Friend attended.
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, under the existing system, resources are lost to housing at a time when there is a continuing need for them. That will all change with the introduction of the new financial framework. First, when we introduce the major repairs allowance next year, there is likely to be a substantial change in the amount of subsidy paid to authorities. That is essential in order to provide the revenue resources that authorities need to maintain their stock. As a result, authorities that are in negative subsidy—such as Three Rivers, which is in or near my hon. Friend's constituency—could go out of negative subsidy altogether and again be entitled to receive subsidy. Others, such as Dacorum, may remain in negative subsidy but at a lower level, with more rental income retained within the housing revenue account to spend on their stock. In either case, there will be consequences for the general fund.
The system will change again when we are able to take rent rebates out of the housing revenue account. When that happens, we propose to capture all assumed


surpluses, including all those that are offset against rent rebates. We have recently confirmed our intention to introduce the pooling of those surpluses. They will then be redistributed to authorities in deficit. When that change is introduced, negative subsidy authorities will no longer be able to transfer resources to their general fund. Along with all other surplus authorities, they will be required to pay their overall surpluses into the pool for redistribution to other housing authorities. That will ensure the most effective use of scarce resources. It will mean that housing resources are retained within housing.
We recognise that, for negative subsidy authorities, the changes may cause difficulties elsewhere. That is why we have said that we shall introduce measures to enable them to make the transition to the new system. Those measures will operate from next April. My hon. Friend pointed out that his local authority was attributing some of the cuts or the inability to provide services this year to the impending changes. I can say only that so far there is no basis for that as the changes do not come into effect until next April.
We are also reviewing the assumed investment rules to see whether there are any grounds for amending them next year. The local authority associations are fully involved in that review, and I understand they are keeping negative subsidy authorities informed of progress. I have already confirmed that we believe that the rules are generally sound in principle. However it may be justified to make some changes for debt-free authorities, which I

understand would include most of those in negative subsidy. That could go a long way towards reducing the difficulties that they face as they move to the new system.
My hon. Friend asked three questions. The first was whether I understood the gravity of the situation. As I have explained, I do and have done for some time, thanks to his eloquence and that of others who represent the local authorities that are affected. That is why we are putting in place the transitional measures. We are aware that they must be finalised by December, to enable local authorities to make plans for the subsequent financial year.
My hon. Friend asked me for an assurance that there will be no catastrophic cuts and I can give him that assurance—but I cannot assure him that there will be no cuts. My hon. Friend asked also if I would press for the mid-year subsidy credit ceiling to be set at zero. I cannot do so, but we will be consulting on the way forward and that is one of the issues we shall be considering.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a topic of considerable importance for a number of authorities, especially the one that my hon. Friend represents. I hope that I have reassured him, at least to some extent, that his concerns and those of his local authority have not fallen on stony ground. Equally, I hope that he accepts that the changes we are making to the housing revenue account system are long overdue.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Seven o'clock.